This case involved a qui tam action by the Public Patent Foundation against GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare under the False Marking Statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, alleging that GSK improperly continued to mark its Citrucel fiber therapy products with the numbers of two patents that expired in January 2005, in order to deceive the public. After a bench trial, the court ruled for the defendant, finding that GSK had not violated the statute. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to prove the required element of intent to deceive, as GSK's patent attorneys lacked knowledge that the markings were improper after expiration, the company promptly removed the markings upon notice of the suit and implemented new procedures, and no evidence showed deceptive purpose.
This case is a putative class action securities lawsuit brought by investors against MRU Holdings executives, Merrill Lynch, and its auditor, alleging violations of federal securities laws through false statements and omissions about the risks of auction rate securities used to securitize student loans, which allegedly inflated the company's stock price. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The core reasoning was that the company had adequately disclosed the relevant risks in its public filings, plaintiffs failed to identify specific fraudulent statements or manipulative conduct by Merrill, and there was insufficient pleading of scienter, particularly given that executives purchased rather than sold stock during the class period. The auditor was not shown to have ignored red flags in its audit.
The case involved a dispute over long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group insurance policy issued by American International Life Assurance Co. to the plaintiff's employer. The plaintiff claimed benefits for a disability resulting from traumatic brain injury due to vaccinations, but the insurer denied the claim beyond 24 months by classifying it as a mental illness. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that the denial was arbitrary and capricious because substantial evidence indicated demonstrable structural brain damage, which is excluded from the mental illness limitation, and the insurer relied on experts who did not examine the plaintiff while ignoring treating physicians' opinions.
In this case, plaintiffs All-Star Marketing Group and related companies sued defendants Media Brands Co. and Saonjay Mirpur for trademark infringement under federal law and copyright infringement, alleging unauthorized use of marks associated with consumer products like The Snuggie and Bumpits, as well as a copyrighted website. After defendants failed to appear or respond, the district court entered a default judgment and permanent injunction against them. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a damages inquest, who recommended $337,000 in statutory damages for the infringements plus attorneys' fees, while upholding the injunction's scope. The court adopted the magistrate's report in full after finding no clear error and no timely objections from the parties, noting that plaintiffs had sought a specific per-mark damages amount that limited the award.
In this case, limited partners of the hedge fund Lipper Convertibles sued its auditor PwC for securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, malpractice, and breach of contract, alleging that they were induced to invest based on misleading unqualified audit opinions from 1995-2000 that falsely stated the fund's financials complied with GAAS and GAAP. The plaintiffs sought damages for the difference between their investments and withdrawals. PwC moved for summary judgment on the direct claims, arguing lack of standing and no evidence of scienter. The court granted the motion and dismissed the direct claims, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a direct, distinct injury separate from harm to the partnership, rendering the claims derivative in nature under both federal and New York law.
This case concerns Fendi's claims against Filene's Basement and Retail Ventures for selling handbags, purses, and accessories bearing counterfeit or imitation Fendi trademarks, in violation of the Lanham Act's provisions on trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and dilution, as well as related New York state law claims for unfair competition and dilution. Defendants raised affirmative defenses including laches and acquiescence and cross-moved for partial summary judgment, arguing issues of fact on counterfeiting, the availability of gray-market goods, and the absence of bad faith, while also seeking to dismiss Retail Ventures and strike certain evidence. The court granted Fendi's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying defendants' cross-motion in full, based on uncontroverted evidence of defendants' use of the marks in commerce after they became famous, their willfulness, and the insufficiency of the asserted defenses.
