In this criminal forfeiture proceeding following Sholam Weiss's RICO conviction and money judgment, the government sought to forfeit two New York properties titled in the name of Weiss's wife, Goldie Feig, as substitute assets. Feig petitioned to exclude the properties under an innocent ownership claim based on a 1989 separation agreement, while both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the validity and circumstances of the separation agreement's execution and whether Weiss retained control or beneficial ownership of the properties after the purported transfer.
This case involved Enpat, Inc. suing Pavel Budnic for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), alleging that Budnic installed and used a wing spar modification kit on his aircraft that infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,328,260. Budnic failed to appear or respond after being served, leading to entry of default. The court granted default judgment on liability, taking the complaint's allegations as true and finding they sufficiently established direct infringement. It declined to award damages or a permanent injunction at this stage, instead granting Enpat leave to submit further evidence on those issues under 35 U.S.C. §§ 283 and 284.
In this patent case, Voter Verified, Inc. sued Election Systems & Software, Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,769,613 and RE40,449, which cover self-verifying voting methods that include steps for a computer voting station to present ballots, store votes, print them for voter examination, and allow voter decisions on acceptability before tabulation. The defendant denied infringement and sought declaratory judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, as well as non-infringement. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court analyzed the accused AutoMark and iVotronic RTAL systems against the asserted claims (including claims 49, 56, 85, 93, and 94), focusing on whether the systems performed all required steps or whether voters exercised sufficient direction and control, and evaluated anticipation under § 102 based on prior art and the reissue history of the patents.
This case is a patent infringement action in which Voter Verified, Inc. sued Premier Election Solutions, Inc. and Diebold, Inc. for allegedly willfully infringing U.S. Patents Nos. 6,769,613 and RE40,449, which describe computer voting systems that print ballots for voter review and verification before final tabulation. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on direct infringement of certain claims, patent validity, and intervening rights, while the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment of non-infringement (including because the original '613 patent was surrendered upon reissue) and invalidity, arguing that the asserted claims were anticipated by 1986 prior-art articles describing similar electronic voting and verification processes. The court reviewed the accused AccuVote-TSX system with AccuView Printer Module, compared it to the patent claims requiring voter comparison and acceptance steps, and analyzed whether voters exercised sufficient direction or control over automated printing to establish direct infringement.
This case arose from consolidated lawsuits involving breach of contract, conversion, Lanham Act violations, and FDUTPA claims between Brokerage Computer Systems, Inc. and North American Clearing, Inc., along with its officer Richard Goble, stemming from a licensing agreement. After granting summary judgment in Goble's favor, the court considered his motion for attorneys' fees and costs, which BCS did not oppose. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion. Upon de novo review of Goble's objections, the district court explained that under the American Rule, a prevailing party must prove entitlement to fees via contract or statute even if the motion is unopposed, and noted that Goble signed the agreement only in a corporate capacity, not individually.
This case involves the sentencing of Defendant Damian Jamil Smith, who had pled guilty in state court to robbery and related charges and in federal court to two counts of robbery under 18 U.S.C. §1951, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and a second firearm offense under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(C)(I). The court considered the defendant's objections to the presentence report on issues including application of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2B3.1(b)(1) for taking property of a financial institution, whether consecutive sentences are required for the §924(c) offenses, the effect of the "except" clause in §924(c)(1)(A), and whether the federal robbery sentence must run consecutive to the state sentence. The court reasoned that the enhancement applies because unauthorized ATM withdrawals meant the banks primarily bore the risk of loss under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, making the funds the property of the financial institutions. It further held that consecutive mandatory minimum terms of seven and twenty-five years must be imposed for the two §924(c) violations and run consecutive to other sentences, based on the statutory text and precedent such as Deal v. United States.