In United States v. Scarfo, the defendants faced federal charges of illegal gambling and loansharking after the FBI, acting under search warrants, installed a Key Logger System on a computer in their business office to capture keystrokes and decrypt an encrypted file containing alleged evidence. The defendants moved to suppress the recovered evidence and sought discovery of details about the KLS technology, arguing it may have violated Title III wiretap laws by intercepting communications during modem use. After an in camera review of classified information under the Classified Information Procedures Act, the court found that the KLS operated only locally on the hard drive and did not intercept wire communications, leading it to deny the suppression motion. The court granted discovery in part by ordering production of an unclassified summary affidavit but denied full disclosure of the classified KLS details.
This case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Bio-Technology General Corp. against Duramed Pharmaceuticals after Duramed filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of the oral contraceptive Mircette. The '724 patent, owned by BTG and licensed to Organon for Mircette, claims a contraceptive regimen with a specific sequential order of estrogenic and progestin compounds. The court granted Duramed's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that neither literal infringement nor infringement under the doctrine of equivalents occurred because Mircette and the generic product administer the compounds in the reverse order from that required by the patent claims. The court reasoned that the claim language and specification expressly limit the invention to the recited order of administration, and that using multiple packages does not satisfy the claim limitations. The decision rested on claim construction as a matter of law, without need for expert testimony on disputed facts.
This case concerns a copyright dispute in which Dam Things from Denmark sought a preliminary injunction against Russ Berrie & Co. to prevent alleged infringement of troll doll designs, importation of infringing products, and related representations. The plaintiff’s original U.S. copyrights had been invalidated in 1965 for lack of proper notice but were restored in 1996 under 17 U.S.C. § 104A. The court examined the validity of the restored copyrights, substantial similarity between the designs, and various defenses including unclean hands and differences in the dolls. It concluded that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because the restoration statute applied and evidence supported copying by the defendant.
The case involved Yvette Bradley suing the United States, Customs Service, and individual officers after being subjected to a luggage search and pat-down at Newark Airport upon returning from Jamaica, alleging racial and gender discrimination as well as an unreasonably intrusive search violating her constitutional rights. The court treated the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment and granted it, finding no violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment or other rights. The core reasoning was that border searches are subject to lower standards of suspicion, the officers had reasonable suspicion based on her attire and origin country, the pat-down was not excessively intrusive, and there was no evidence of discriminatory policy or practice.
This case is a civil forfeiture in rem action in which the U.S. government seized over $8 million from bank accounts of a Brazilian currency exchange company and a related entity, alleging the funds were proceeds of drug trafficking and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 981. Claimants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause regarding some seized funds and for other relief, without first filing an answer or responding to interrogatories as required by Supplemental Rule C(6). The court held that claimants must comply with Rule C(6) by filing a verified claim and then serving an answer (and responses to interrogatories) before pursuing dispositive motions, and therefore dismissed the claimants' motions without prejudice while granting the government's cross-motion to compel an answer.
This case involved a claim by the FDIC, as receiver for the failed City Federal Savings Bank, against National Union Fire Insurance under a financial institution bond for approximately $19 million in losses from additional loans made to the troubled Port Liberte' construction project. The FDIC alleged that bank executive George Mikula dishonestly concealed negative information about the project from the bank's board, leading to the loans that were never repaid. The court granted National Union's motion for summary judgment, holding that the bond did not cover the losses because its terms required the employee to have acted with the intent to obtain a financial benefit for himself, and the evidence showed Mikula had no such intent beyond normal employment incentives. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact on this element and noted that the bond's language was narrowly tailored to exclude coverage in these circumstances.