This case involves plaintiff Park B. Smith, Inc. (later substituted by Park B. Smith, Ltd.) suing CHF Industries for infringement of two design patents (U.S. Patent Nos. Des. 493,651 and Des. 505,039) covering ornamental aspects of raisable window shades or panels. After the Federal Circuit vacated a prior noninfringement ruling and remanded in light of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the district court addressed multiple pending motions. The court granted substitution of the proper plaintiff, denied CHF's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, denied CHF's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement or invalidity under the ordinary observer test, and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The core reasoning focused on confirming the substituted plaintiff's standing as assignee, determining that material factual disputes existed regarding substantial similarity between the accused product and the patented designs, and finding no basis for amendment or dismissal given the procedural history and available evidence.
This case arose from Brazilian investors who lost funds in a Ponzi scheme operated by the now-defunct Bank of Europe, which maintained correspondent accounts at defendants Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of America. The plaintiffs asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud and commercial bad faith, alleging the banks facilitated the scheme by processing transfers and opening accounts used to conceal the fraud. The district court granted the banks' motions for summary judgment on both claims. The court reasoned that, even accepting the testimony of plaintiffs' key witness, the evidence failed to show the defendants had actual knowledge of the fraud or provided substantial assistance to it.
This case arose from Milliken & Company's efforts to enforce a Nevada judgment against Chinese entities by seeking a turnover of funds held in accounts at the Bank of China in New York. The Bank resisted discovery requests, arguing that the Hague Evidence Convention should govern and asserting a superior lien on the accounts, but repeatedly missed deadlines for responses and a protective order motion. The magistrate judge denied the protective order, precluded the lien defense, ordered document production and interrogatory answers, and imposed costs as sanctions for noncompliance. On review, the district court sustained the sanctions and discovery orders due to the Bank's delays and failure to show prejudice to the petitioner, but allowed the Bank to maintain its affirmative defense regarding the lien. The core reasoning focused on forfeiture of Convention protections through untimely objections and the adequacy of monetary sanctions without broader preclusion.
This case involved Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. suing Kmart Corporation, Sears Holding Corporation, and 24 Seven International LLC for trademark and trade dress infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment over Defendants' Concourse luggage and wheeled bags that allegedly copied Coach's Op Art designs and marks. Defendants raised affirmative defenses including the first sale doctrine, statute of limitations, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, failure to mitigate damages, and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike these defenses. The court granted the motion in part, striking several defenses that presented no question of fact or law allowing success or that prejudiced Plaintiffs, and denied it in part as to defenses like unclean hands, failure to mitigate, and failure to state a claim that could potentially apply or were not prejudicial.
AIG Financial Products Corp. sued Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, for breach of contract and declaratory relief arising from an interest rate swap agreement tied to the District's 1995 revenue bonds, where the parties disputed valuation and termination after interest rates shifted. The District moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington. The court denied dismissal, finding that the District had sufficient New York contacts through its agent to support jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, but granted transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the balance of convenience, including the location of parties, witnesses, and evidence, strongly favored Washington.
This case involves a copyright infringement claim by the heir of an artist against a textbook publisher and its printer for reproducing the artist's paintings in educational textbooks beyond the 40,000 copies authorized by the original license agreement. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of disgorgement of profits under the Copyright Act. The court granted the motion as to the printer, reasoning that it had no involvement in selecting content or obtaining licenses and its revenues depended solely on the quantities the publisher directed it to print. The court denied the motion as to the publisher, finding factual disputes over whether the paintings contributed uniquely to the textbook's profits beyond any license fee, based on expert testimony about their value as teaching tools.