Roderick R. McKelvie

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

healthcarefederal power

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.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This multi-district litigation involved plaintiff Frank Manchak's claims that multiple defendants infringed his U.S. Patent No. 4,079,003, which discloses a method for treating aqueous organic sludge with calcium oxide to produce a solid, friable reaction product. Three defendants—Atlantic Richfield Company, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, and Agronomics Management Group—moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. The court granted ARCO's motion after finding no genuine dispute that its process did not meet all claim limitations, including the requirement of a friable reaction product. The court denied the motions of DCWASA and AMG, concluding that factual disputes remained on issues such as whether their processes produced a friable product or met the pH and deactivation requirements, precluding summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved two classes of U.S. West shareholders who sued Qwest and its CEO after a 1999 merger, alleging that the joint proxy statement soliciting approval of the merger was false and misleading under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act because it summarized a 'no solicitation' covenant in the merger agreement without disclosing Qwest's intent to breach it by pursuing another deal. A second class also claimed promissory estoppel based on the proxy statement as an alleged promise not to breach the agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that a proxy statement's mere recitation and summary of merger agreement terms does not constitute a representation of future compliance or a definite promise that could support either claim.

business & regulatory

This bankruptcy appeal concerns a dispute between CellNet Data Systems and Schlumberger Resource Management Services over ownership of royalty rights under pre-bankruptcy license agreements for CellNet's intellectual property. Schlumberger purchased most of CellNet's assets, including its intellectual property, but exercised its contractual right to exclude all assets and agreements related to CellNet's joint venture with BCN, including the license agreements that generated the royalties. The Bankruptcy Court held that CellNet retained the right to the royalties because Schlumberger had affirmatively excluded the underlying license agreements from the purchase; this court affirmed, finding the agreements unambiguous and concluding that neither the rejection of the licenses under 11 U.S.C. § 365 nor the licensee's election to retain rights under § 365(n) transferred the royalty entitlement to Schlumberger.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves the apportionment of environmental cleanup costs at an industrial site among BP Amoco and defendants Sun Oil, Claymont, and FMC under federal and state laws. BP Amoco sought contribution and indemnification after settling with the government, asserting claims including CERCLA operator liability, state analogs like HSCA, contract-based theories, and others. In an earlier order, the court had dismissed several counts, including the CERCLA and HSCA direct operator liability claim against FMC. On reconsideration, the court reversed that dismissal, holding that the amended complaint's allegations of FMC's environmental control over the facility were sufficient to state a claim at the pleading stage, with factual issues to be addressed later on summary judgment.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

This patent infringement case involves plaintiffs Nexell Therapeutics, Becton Dickinson, and Johns Hopkins University, who hold patents on methods using antibodies to purify human stem cells, suing defendant AmCell for selling its CliniMACS device that allegedly infringes those patents when used with the antibodies. AmCell sought summary judgment of non-infringement under the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) safe harbor exemption, arguing its activities were reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval for the device. The court had previously granted AmCell's motion for summary judgment and now addresses plaintiffs' motion to amend that order. The court denied the motion to amend, reasoning that AmCell's actions—including recruiting clinicians for trials, advertising at conferences, and providing devices to investigators—were objectively reasonably related to FDA submissions even if they had promotional aspects, and that FDA concerns about the trials did not remove the exemption.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a contract dispute between True North Composites, LLC and Trinity Industries, Inc. arising from the Carbodies Supply Agreement to jointly develop and manufacture composite railcars using the SCRIMP process. True North sued for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Trinity counterclaimed on similar grounds; after a jury trial, True North obtained a verdict awarding it approximately $14.8 million in damages. On post-trial motions, the court granted in part Trinity's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial or to alter the judgment, specifically to eliminate duplicative damages awarded for both the express contract breach and the good faith claim. The court otherwise denied Trinity's motions, upheld the remainder of the verdict, and granted True North's motion for declaratory relief regarding the parties' ongoing contractual rights and exclusivity provisions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a contract dispute arising in NVF Company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, where NVF objected to New Castle County's proof of claim for over $1.8 million in unpaid sewer fees and asserted counterclaims for breach of a 1970 agreement (as amended in 1987). NVF alleged the County failed to repair a sewer line it built and transferred, refused to acquire and operate an on-site pumping station, and breached the duty of good faith by constructing an alternative station. The court held it had supplemental jurisdiction over the claims as a setoff but granted the County's motions for summary judgment, finding the repair claim barred by laches, waiver, lack of notice, and insufficient evidence, the pumping station claim failed because a condition precedent of connecting other customers was never met, and the good faith claim failed for similar reasons.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This patent infringement case involved plaintiffs IPPV Enterprises and MAAST suing Echostar Communications, NagraVision, and NagraStar over the DISH Network's use of features for tracking viewed programs, billing subscribers, providing parental controls, and encrypting pay-per-view signals, allegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 4,163,254; 4,225,884; 4,484,217; and 4,600,942. Following claim construction rulings and a jury trial on infringement and validity, the jury found literal and equivalent infringement of certain claims, willfulness, and awarded $15 million in bundled damages. The court then addressed post-trial motions and concluded that the '217 patent was invalid because prior art, including the Callais patent, anticipated all asserted claims by disclosing the same methods for subscriber credit limits and impulse purchases. The opinion also examined the impact of this invalidity on the willfulness finding and damages calculations under reasonable royalty and lost profits standards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This criminal case involves a nineteen-count indictment against Lawrence W. Wright charging conspiracy, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, bribery of a program receiving federal funds, and making false statements. Wright moved to dismiss counts I through XVII, arguing that the indictment failed to allege the element of willfulness under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b) for the conspiracy, stolen property, and laundering counts, and that the bribery counts lacked a sufficient connection to federal funds or programs for subject matter jurisdiction. The government responded that interstate transportation is a jurisdictional element without an attached mens rea requirement and that federal highway funds were matched with the state suburban street funds at issue. The court analyzed the parties' arguments and stipulations, including that checks cleared through another state and that federal funds exceeded the statutory threshold, to determine whether the charges were properly alleged.

criminal law

This case involved employees at a General Motors plant who sued the company and their unions, alleging that a 2000 modification to the seniority rules in their local collective bargaining agreement unfairly reduced their seniority and led to their layoffs, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. The plaintiffs claimed the change breached the agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. The court determined that the claims were not preempted by the NLRB and were timely, but granted summary judgment to the defendants because the local agreement allowed modifications, the change was not arbitrary or in bad faith, and the plaintiffs suffered no actionable harm from any procedural violations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which Agere Systems Guardian Corp. sued Proxim, Inc. for infringing three patents covering wireless LAN technology and products; Proxim responded with counterclaims including inequitable conduct rendering one patent unenforceable, plus antitrust, breach of contract, and tortious interference claims, and sought to add parties and suppliers. Agere moved to strike the inequitable conduct defense and dismiss the counterclaim for insufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), while Proxim filed successive motions for leave to amend its pleadings to add factual details, new claims, and additional parties. The court granted Proxim leave to file its third amended answer and counterclaims in part—allowing enhanced allegations of inequitable conduct, certain new counterclaims, and joinder of suppliers via third-party complaints—while denying other aspects such as improper joinder and finding some proposed claims futile; it also denied Agere’s motion to strike because the amended inequitable conduct allegations satisfied Rule 9(b). These rulings rested on standards for granting leave to amend under Rule 15 and the particularity required for inequitable conduct claims tied to prior art and IEEE submissions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement and fraud dispute in which Micron Technology alleges that Rambus committed fraud by failing to disclose its pending patent applications to the JEDEC industry standards body while participating in the development of SDRAM and DDR SDRAM standards, then later seeking royalties on compliant products; Rambus counterclaims that Micron's products infringe its patents. The court addresses Micron's motions for summary judgment seeking to apply collateral estoppel from a related Virginia fraud and non-infringement judgment, as well as Rambus's motion to stay the action pending appeal of that judgment. The court denies summary judgment on the fraud, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands claims because the Virginia judgment does not establish that Micron relied to its detriment on Rambus's nondisclosure. It also declines to stay the entire case but directs the parties to complete discovery while awaiting the Federal Circuit's decision.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This bankruptcy case involves claims filed by creditor Snyder Ventures against debtor Marvel Entertainment Group arising from a 1994 asset purchase agreement under which Marvel acquired assets from Snyder's predecessor. The claims seek additional purchase price payments based on post-closing adjustments to the $7 million price, specifically an upward adjustment tied to Net Other Assets calculations that include treatment of accounts receivable collections. Marvel objected and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the contract language is unambiguous and that Snyder's proposed interpretation relying on parol evidence should be rejected. The court granted the motion, holding that the agreement's plain terms dictate the method for applying collections to the oldest receivables first and that extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent cannot vary those terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a contract dispute between American Life Insurance Company (ALICO) and its former agents, including Carlos Parra and related entities, over claims arising from the termination of agency agreements for selling life insurance in Latin America. After Parra initiated arbitration alleging breach and other wrongs, ALICO sued in federal court seeking a declaration that a 1994 General Release barred those claims; Parra defended by asserting the release was procured by fraud and duress. A jury found the release invalid on both grounds, leading the district court to lift an injunction against arbitration, though the Third Circuit later remanded with instructions limiting the arbitration's scope. On remand, the court decided that Parra must withdraw his fraudulent inducement claim from arbitration as a condition of proceeding, while other claims may continue, with any consideration paid for the release to be offset against any eventual arbitration award rather than returned upfront. The core reasoning rested on Parra's election to void the release in this forum, principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and fidelity to the appellate mandate without further restricting the arbitration panel's authority over non-fraud claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure