Norma Levy Shapiro

This patent infringement case was brought by Warsaw Orthopedic and several Medtronic entities against Globus Medical, alleging infringement of two patents covering spinal stabilization devices and methods; a jury found the patents valid and infringed. After a bench trial on damages and injunctive relief based solely on evidence of harm to one plaintiff (Medtronic USA), the court addressed post-trial arguments that only the patent owner had standing. The court held that only Warsaw, as the patent owner and grantor of limited licenses, possessed constitutional standing to recover for infringement, while the other plaintiffs lacked the requisite exclusionary rights under the licensing agreements. It denied the request to reopen the evidentiary record and limited any damages and relief accordingly, reasoning that patent standing requires title or an exclusive license sufficient to exclude others.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Michelle Hetzel, convicted in Pennsylvania state court of first-degree murder, conspiracy, and related charges for the 2000 killing of Devon Guzman, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition raised claims including denial of a fair trial due to pretrial publicity and refusal to change venue or venire, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper jury instructions on accomplice liability. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in part, denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and found that the state courts' rulings were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. However, the court granted a certificate of appealability solely on the venue/venire issue, determining that reasonable jurists could debate whether the state court's refusal violated Hetzel's rights.

criminal lawprocedure

William Evans, an inmate serving concurrent sentences from Northampton and Lehigh Counties, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' recalculation of his time-served credit on the Lehigh County sentence, which changed his effective start date and delayed his release. The magistrate judge recommended denial, but the district court adopted the recommendation only in part after finding some claims procedurally defaulted. The court granted the petition, holding that the clerk's amendment of the 1994 commitment form to revoke the original credit—done without following required procedures—violated due process because it altered the execution of the sentence in a manner inconsistent with the original judicial order.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved medical service providers suing Concentra, a medical cost containment company, for breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, claiming improper reductions in recommended payments through its bill review and PPO network services. The plaintiffs brought the action as a class action on behalf of similarly situated providers. The court approved the class action settlement, determining it to be fair, reasonable, and adequate after reviewing the parties' agreement and the nature of the claims.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case involves a former attorney suing a law firm for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Pennsylvania unfair competition, and unauthorized use of his name, based on the firm's continued operation of the domain name leonardtillery.com and related marketing after his departure. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts, finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact on key elements such as whether his name had acquired secondary meaning, prior ownership of the mark, likelihood of consumer confusion, and the commercial value of the name without consent. The decision emphasized that credibility determinations and weighing of evidence, including circumstantial proof like marketing materials and limited instances of actual confusion, are inappropriate for summary judgment and must be resolved at trial rather than through pretrial rulings. The court also partially granted the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents related to the domain name while denying it as overbroad in other respects.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from the death of longshoreman Lewis James Seals, who was crushed by a reefer container on the M/V Lombok Strait during unloading in Camden, New Jersey, due to an alleged double twist lock condition; plaintiff, as administratrix of his estate, brought claims against the vessel owner Shipping Company Lombok Strait BV and its agent Seatrade Groningen BV for breach of turnover and intervention duties under the LHWCA, negligence under general maritime law, and related state claims. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions, including the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, cross-motions for summary judgment on agency relationships and liability, and motions in limine regarding expert testimony. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend, denied all summary judgment motions after finding genuine disputes of material fact on issues such as control, agency, and notice of the container condition, granted certain evidentiary limitations, and scheduled further hearings on personal jurisdiction and Daubert issues. The core reasoning focused on the existence of factual disputes precluding summary disposition and the need for additional proceedings to resolve jurisdictional and evidentiary questions before trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Arthur Wolk, an attorney, sued the law firm Lord Bissell & Brook and two of its attorneys for defamation and related intentional torts, alleging they disseminated a sealed discovery order from a prior Georgia wrongful death case (Taylor v. Teledyne) that sanctioned Wolk for discovery violations, in order to harm his reputation. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and alternatively for summary judgment. The court dismissed all claims against the individual attorneys Strueber and Greene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) due to insufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania. It granted summary judgment to the law firm on the defamation and other tort claims because the attorneys' statements were made in judicial proceedings and thus privileged, and there was no evidence of dissemination of the order after it was sealed and vacated. The court also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim because the underlying tort claims failed to state a cause of action.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, homeowners Daniel and Denise Valley sued their insurer, State Farm, in Pennsylvania state court for breach of contract and bad faith after the company refused to pay a claim for accidental soot damage to their insured property. The complaint sought no more than $50,000 on each count, and the case was designated for state arbitration with a damages cap at that level. State Farm removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the total amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 once potential punitive damages, attorney fees, and interest under the bad faith statute were considered. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the removing party need only show the jurisdictional threshold is met under a reasonable reading of the claims and that the legal certainty test did not require dismissal here. The case was referred to federal arbitration.

procedurefederal power

In Tillery v. Leonard & Sciolla, LLP, a former partner of a law firm sued the remaining partners after his departure, alleging that their continued use of the domain name leonardtillery.com and related web practices violated federal and state trademark, unfair competition, false advertising, and Anti-Cybersquatting laws as well as a Pennsylvania statute on unauthorized commercial use of a name. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to disable the site and bar any use of his name in connection with the firm's services. The court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because the partnership agreement permitted continued use of the name, the firm had taken steps to rebrand and redirect traffic, and evidence of actual consumer confusion was lacking or speculative. The court further found that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against granting the injunction at this early stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Synergetics, Inc. against Peregrine Surgical, Ltd. and Innovatech Surgical, Inc., concerning adapters that connect laser probes to light sources used in eye surgery, specifically under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,357,932 and 6,634,799. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement by first conducting claim construction to interpret disputed patent terms such as "BNC connector" and the configuration of slots and posts. Relying primarily on intrinsic evidence from the patent claims and specifications, the court determined the ordinary meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, rejecting attempts to read limitations like spiral slots into all claims, and allowing for possible equivalence arguments in some instances.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a diversity action by Pennsylvania residents against a New Jersey corporation for negligence and vicarious liability arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New Jersey. The defendant moved to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the motion, finding that venue was proper in New Jersey because the defendant maintains its principal place of business there and the accident occurred in the transferee district. Balancing private interests such as the location of the claim and public interests such as the applicability of New Jersey law and local interests, the court concluded that these factors outweighed the plaintiffs' choice of venue in Pennsylvania.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, Marvin Lundy sought costs and reasonable attorney's fees under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524(c) after obtaining a permanent injunction against Robert Hochberg for the unauthorized practice of law. The court held that the statute permits a discretionary award of fees to prevailing parties to encourage enforcement of the prohibition on unauthorized practice. Although Lundy qualified as a prevailing party entitled to some fees, the court discounted the award due to his unclean hands, including prior knowledge of and acquiescence in Hochberg's unauthorized practice. The court applied federal civil rights fee-award methodology to determine a reasonable amount while emphasizing the statute's consumer-protection purpose.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the dissolution of the law partnership Haymond and Lundy, LLP, resulting in a jury verdict for plaintiff John Haymond against defendant Marvin Lundy, along with a permanent injunction barring non-attorney Robert Hochberg from practicing law in Pennsylvania. Lundy moved for a new trial or modification of the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, alleging misconduct by Haymond's counsel in arguing for dissolution under the partnership agreement at trial but later seeking distribution under the Uniform Partnership Act; Hochberg separately sought relief from the injunction. The court denied all post-trial motions, holding that Lundy failed to show either misconduct or prejudice because the jury was not deciding damages, had been exposed to arguments about unequal asset division, and received notice of Haymond's positions, while the court ultimately applied the partnership agreement rather than the UPA. The court also addressed related motions, including one to intervene, but left other pending matters for later resolution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from the 1999 dissolution of the personal injury law firm Haymond & Lundy, LLP, after which the former partners filed cross-actions in federal court asserting claims for breach of the partnership agreement, Lanham Act violations, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil RICO, unauthorized practice of law, and related conspiracy allegations. Following consolidation, dismissal of multiple claims on motions to dismiss and summary judgment, and the appointment of a special master to handle case-file distribution, the court addressed the core contractual issues concerning division of the firm's pending matters. The court held that the partnership agreement required allocation of cases by mutual agreement on potential net fee value at dissolution and, where that process could not be replicated due to prior solicitations, directed that net fees ultimately recovered from each case be divided in the same proportions that would have applied under the agreement, with a receiver appointed to administer the process and ensure payments to former partners.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case arising from the 1999 dissolution of the Haymond & Lundy law firm, Lundy asserted a counterclaim against Hochberg for the unauthorized practice of law in Pennsylvania. The court held a non-jury trial and issued findings of fact showing that Hochberg, who was never licensed in Pennsylvania and had been disbarred in Massachusetts and suspended in Connecticut, served as managing partner, directed attorneys on case strategy and assignments, and appeared on firm signage and materials without disclosing his lack of licensure. The court concluded that these actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law under Pennsylvania rules and granted Lundy's request for a permanent injunction against Hochberg.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Dr. Mahood's claim under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by Omaha Property and Casualty for flood damage to his historic Pennsylvania home during Hurricane Floyd in 1999. Because the policy was issued under the National Flood Insurance Act, federal law governed and preempted state-law claims for breach of contract and bad faith. After a non-jury trial, the court made detailed findings of fact on the scope of covered damage to floors, walls, electrical systems, and other elements, compared competing adjuster estimates, and applied SFIP provisions on actual cash value, depreciation, and replacement cost to determine the amount payable. The court noted that the parties had waived the policy's appraisal clause and that recovery for certain amounts required proof of completed repairs.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The plaintiffs, residents of New Jersey and Pennsylvania employed briefly on a Connecticut development project, sued their former employer Waterford Development, LLC for breach of contract and promissory and equitable estoppel following their termination. The court addressed multiple procedural motions, confirming diversity subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenships and the amount in controversy, finding the service of process challenge premature, and noting minimal but sufficient personal jurisdiction contacts in Pennsylvania. It denied the motions to dismiss but granted the alternative motion to transfer venue to the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), reasoning that Connecticut law governed the contract formation there, the project involved significant state interests, and Connecticut was the more convenient and appropriate forum.

procedurelabor & employment

The case concerned a §1983 civil rights action brought by the parents and brother of Shannon Schieber against the City of Philadelphia and two police officers, alleging that the officers failed to enter her apartment in response to a Priority 1 911 call reporting screams, resulting in her death by murder. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment after earlier rulings on motions to dismiss and to exclude expert testimony. It applied the standard that summary judgment is proper only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. The court examined issues including parental standing to assert a liberty interest in an adult child's companionship, the state-created danger doctrine, exigent circumstances for warrantless entry, and related state-law claims such as wrongful death and survival actions.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from a fatal 1999 car accident in which the plaintiff's decedent was a passenger; after the at-fault driver's insurer deposited its $1 million policy limit in an interpleader action, a court-approved valuation set the decedent's damages at $998,239 and awarded the estate a pro rata share of $154,000. The estate then sued Nationwide, the underinsured motorist carrier for the vehicle in which the decedent was riding, seeking the $844,239 difference and arguing that the prior valuation was binding under issue preclusion. Nationwide moved for summary judgment, contending it was not bound because it had not been a party to the interpleader and had no opportunity to contest the valuation. Applying Pennsylvania issue-preclusion law in this diversity action, the court held that Nationwide was not in privity with its insureds due to a conflict of interest and therefore could relitigate the amount of the claim. The court denied the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion, granted Nationwide's, and dismissed the action without prejudice to arbitration.

proceduretorts & liability

In this product liability case, plaintiff Scott Zemaitatis sued Innovasive Devices after suture anchors used in his shoulder surgery allegedly caused ongoing pain and injury due to a design defect, with a jury awarding him $297,000 in damages. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur, arguing errors in admitting the plaintiff's expert testimony under Daubert standards, excluding its own expert's FDA data, insufficient evidence, and excessive damages. The court denied all post-trial motions, finding the expert testimony reliable and relevant, the verdict supported by sufficient evidence on defective design and causation, and the damages award reasonable. It granted the plaintiff's motion to add delay damages under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, resulting in a molded verdict of $305,686.23.

torts & liabilityprocedure