This patent case concerns Wesley Jessen Corporation's allegation that Bausch & Lomb infringed ten claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,711,943, which covers a monomer used in extended-wear contact lens materials, by making and selling its PureVision lenses. Bausch & Lomb denied infringement and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement along with invalidity based on anticipation by the Keogh patent, obviousness in light of prior art including the Tanaka patent, failure to disclose the best mode, lack of enablement, lack of utility, and indefiniteness, as well as unenforceability due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. After a bench trial on these issues of literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and the various validity and enforceability defenses, the court issued a post-trial opinion addressing the factual background of contact lens technology and the parties' evidence and arguments.
This case involves plaintiff Gwendolyn Portlock's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her 1995 application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, based on obesity along with other conditions such as depression and hypertension. After an administrative law judge affirmed the denial and while appeals were pending, the SSA deleted obesity as an independent impairment from its Listing of Impairments (former listing 9.09) effective October 1999. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the Commissioner but remanded the case for consideration of whether the deleted listing should still apply; on the Commissioner's motion to alter or amend that remand order, the court reconsiders the issue of retroactivity. The court determines that the SSA's deletion rule applies to claims pending at any administrative or judicial level and grants the motion, affirming the Commissioner's decision in full without requiring application of the former listing.
This criminal case involved defendant Lawrence W. Wright, a reverend, who was convicted after a jury trial on nineteen counts including conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, bribery, and false statements, arising from a scheme with a deceased state representative to divert approximately $150,000 in state Suburban Street Funds to Wright's church, after which the funds were split between their personal accounts. Wright filed post-trial motions under Rules 33 and 29(c) seeking a new trial on the transportation counts due to excluded evidence and acquittal on the conspiracy, money laundering, and bribery counts, arguing lack of proof that he knew the checks would travel interstate and insufficient evidence of a federal interest in the bribery conduct. The court denied the motion for a new trial and denied acquittal on the money laundering and conspiracy counts, holding that knowledge of interstate transportation is not required as it is merely a jurisdictional element, but granted acquittal on the bribery counts because Third Circuit precedent requires proof of a federal nexus or interest under 18 U.S.C. § 666, which was not satisfied here based on the stipulated facts.
This bankruptcy adversary proceeding arose from claims by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors against former directors, controlling shareholders, and lenders involved in the leveraged buyout of Hechinger Company, including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty by controlling shareholders to creditors when the company entered the zone of insolvency. The Hechinger Defendants moved to certify to the Third Circuit (later considered for the Delaware Supreme Court) the question of whether, under Delaware law, controlling shareholders owe fiduciary duties to creditors in that context. The court denied the certification motion, reasoning that the question was no longer case-dispositive because the non-director shareholder defendants had been dismissed via summary judgment, leaving only defendants who also faced overlapping fiduciary duty claims as directors under a separate count. The court concluded there was no longer an important and urgent reason for immediate resolution by a higher court, as the litigation would continue regardless of the answer.
This case is a civil bankruptcy proceeding in which the liquidating trustee of USN Communications sought to avoid approximately $68 million in cash transfers to the sellers of a cellular reseller business (CT Tel) as a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B), asserting that USN did not receive reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent or left with unreasonably small capital. The defendants asserted affirmative defenses under the securities settlement payment safe harbor of § 546(e) and good faith under § 548(c). After a bench trial with expert testimony on valuation, business operations, and USN's financial condition, the court evaluated whether the purchase price reflected reasonably equivalent value, including potential synergies, and whether USN met the insolvency or undercapitalization tests.
This patent infringement case involved plaintiffs AB/Sciex alleging that defendant Micromass's Quattro Ultima mass spectrometers infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,963,736 on improved ion transmission methods using rod sets and pressure controls in chambers. After claim construction and a jury trial, the jury found literal infringement by the Hexapole version, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents by the Ion Tunnel version, no invalidity of the claims, and awarded $47.5 million in damages. The court had earlier addressed summary judgment motions on infringement, validity, inequitable conduct, and antitrust counterclaims, and conducted a bench trial on equitable defenses, while reserving judgment on post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law.