Caleb Merrill Wright

The case concerned plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after their underlying lawsuit challenging administrative procedures was dismissed as moot due to changes implemented by the defendant Secretary. The court had earlier denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue but later granted reconsideration and dismissed the action for mootness. Plaintiffs contended they were prevailing parties because their lawsuit acted as a catalyst for the procedural changes, while the government argued they could not prevail since the case ended on a motion to dismiss without a merits decision. The court denied the defendant's motion for a protective order and reserved decision on the fees request, holding that discovery was necessary to assess whether the lawsuit caused the relief and whether plaintiffs met the prevailing-party threshold under the catalyst theory, provided jurisdiction existed when the suit was filed.

procedure

The case involved Barnes Group Inc. suing Connell Ltd. Partnership for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, and related state-law claims arising from Connell's use of striped color schemes on its IDENTI spring die springs that incorporated the same colors Barnes used on its solid-colored springs to denote load ranges. Connell denied infringement, asserted that Barnes' colors were generic or functional, and counterclaimed to cancel Barnes' registrations and for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. After denying a preliminary injunction and holding a seven-day trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the parties' product lines, color-coding systems, prior registrations, likelihood of confusion, dilution, genericism, functionality, and abandonment of certain marks.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the parents of a seaman who disappeared from a tugboat in cold weather and was later found drowned, suing his employer under the Jones Act for negligence and under general maritime law for unseaworthiness. The defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove causation or entitlement to damages. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim for loss of support damages because no record showed financial dependence on or expected contributions from the decedent, while finding triable issues of fact on other elements such as vessel conditions that might have caused the fall. The decision relied on the requirement under Rule 56 that the movant must first support its position before shifting the burden, along with precedents requiring proof of pecuniary loss in wrongful death actions under maritime law.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

This case concerned Imperial Chemical Industries' (ICI) patent infringement claims against Danbury Pharmacal after Danbury filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of atenolol and atenolol/chlorthalidone for hypertension treatment, while certifying that ICI's U.S. Patent No. 3,934,032 was invalid. Danbury admitted infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) but raised affirmative defenses of invalidity for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and inadequate disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Following an eight-day bench trial, the court evaluated the scope of prior art, differences between atenolol and existing compounds, the level of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony on beta-blocker structures, and secondary considerations like commercial success, while applying the presumption of patent validity and noting that the PTO's examination is not binding.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case is a class action by SSI recipients with mental disabilities challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' policy, under the POMS procedures implementing 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(1), of denying continued benefits during short-term hospitalization when the recipient's Statement of Need is filed after the tenth day of the month following admission. The named plaintiffs had their requests for continued benefits denied or treated as overpayments due to late filings, despite their conditions, and they seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, primarily arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court addresses whether jurisdiction exists, including the waivable and nonwaivable exhaustion requirements and potential exceptions for the class claims.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case involved consolidated Federal Tort Claims Act suits by Cheryl Ann Kehnast, Alan Kehnast, and Eileen Fitzpatrick against the United States (and a co-defendant driver) for injuries from a March 1985 multi-vehicle collision in Delaware. Plaintiffs alleged that Sergeant Willie D. Davis, an Army medic traveling in a government-leased vehicle to assist a National Guard unit, negligently caused the crash while intoxicated and that the United States was also liable for negligent entrustment. The court found that Davis was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and that his negligence caused the plaintiffs' injuries, entering judgment for the plaintiffs and awarding $64,720 to Cheryl Kehnast, $46,300 to Alan Kehnast, and $29,500 to Eileen Fitzpatrick under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

In Terra Nova Ins. Co., Inc. v. Nanticoke Pines, Ltd., an insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholder in a pending state lawsuit in which the policyholder was sued for injuries from a 1985 shooting by an alleged employee outside a tavern. The state suit alleged liability on respondeat superior and direct negligence grounds. The federal court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that an assault-and-battery exclusion in the liability policy barred coverage for the incident. The court further held that under Delaware law delivery of the policy was unnecessary for the contract to be enforceable and that the broker's receipt of the policy constituted constructive delivery to the insured.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a patent infringement suit brought by Imperial Chemical Industries against Danbury Pharmacal concerning two ICI patents on pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use for atenolol, a beta-blocker compound for treating angina, arrhythmias, and hypertension. Danbury admitted infringement after filing ANDAs to market a generic version but moved for summary judgment on grounds that the patents were invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court denied the motion, holding that Danbury had not met its burden to show obviousness because the prior art did not predict atenolol's specific combination of cardioselectivity without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, and genuine issues of fact existed regarding unexpected results and secondary indicia such as commercial success.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproperty

This case is a tax refund suit in which Philadelphia & Reading Corporation sought approximately $10.5 million from the IRS after a multi-year audit of its 1964-1968 tax returns that produced both deficiencies and overpayments. The parties had executed a qualified Form 870 waiver allowing the IRS to assess deficiencies only after scheduling the overassessments, but prior litigation established that the IRS's June 1973 assessments were premature. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the taxpayer's cross-motion, holding that the taxpayer was bound by the settlement it had accepted, that collateral estoppel from the Seventh Circuit's ruling prevented relitigation of the assessments' validity, and that allowing a refund would produce an impermissible windfall. The core reasoning rested on the taxpayer's election to benefit from the waiver agreement rather than pursue Tax Court litigation, combined with the statutory framework for netting deficiencies and overpayments.

taxesprocedure

Plaintiffs brought a § 1983 action alleging that Sussex County officials violated their constitutional rights by approving a conditional-use zoning change for an electric substation on nearby land without adequate procedural safeguards, including denial of cross-examination and a continuance at public hearings. The court considered motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, accepting the pleaded facts as true. It determined that the plaintiffs lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the zoning decision or in the use and enjoyment of their own land sufficient to trigger due process protections. The court therefore granted dismissal, noting that state-law limitations periods and other remedies did not alter the constitutional analysis.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

Bristol-Myers Squibb filed a declaratory judgment action seeking rulings of invalidity, noninfringement, and unenforceability of U.S. Patent 3,803,124 held by Erbamont and related entities. Erbamont counterclaimed for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) based on 13 kilograms of material that Bristol-Myers had imported. The court granted Bristol-Myers summary judgment of noninfringement on the counterclaim. After Bristol-Myers stated it would not import any further allegedly infringing material before the patent expired in 1991, Erbamont moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the case, holding that no justiciable controversy remained under the Declaratory Judgment Act because Bristol-Myers lacked immediate intent or capacity to infringe and any ruling would be an advisory opinion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation against Baxter Travenol Laboratories over claims 24-29 of a reissue patent (Re. 32,011) concerning ultra-purification of Factor VIII using monoclonal antibodies. Baxter moved for judgment of invalidity and unenforceability, as well as a finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for attorney fees, based on the collateral estoppel effect of prior summary judgment rulings by Judge Schwarzer in related California cases that found the same claims invalid for anticipation and failure to disclose the best mode, unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and the case exceptional. The court granted Baxter's motion in full, holding the claims invalid and unenforceable and awarding fees. It reasoned that Scripps had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior actions, making collateral estoppel applicable to both the validity/unenforceability findings and the exceptionality determination under Blonder-Tongue and related precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The United States, on behalf of the Small Business Administration, sued Christine LaFrance to recover the unpaid balance of a 1975 SBA loan of $86,000 made to her and her then-husband for a mushroom farming business, which went into default after 1979. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the defendant raising defenses including the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a). The court granted each motion in part and denied each in part, determining that the limitations period barred recovery on certain pre-acceleration installments but not others, while rejecting other defenses such as laches. The decision turned on the timing of default, acceleration, and notice to the defendant regarding the loan status.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal concerning a Chapter 11 debtor's attempt to assume an executory real estate sales contract that included an addendum for paying commissions to a real estate agency and attorney fees. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's approval of assuming the commissions addendum, ruling that it constituted a separate non-executory contract that could not be assumed under 11 U.S.C. § 365. The court affirmed the nunc pro tunc employment of the professionals but vacated the fee awards and remanded for determination of appropriate compensation, emphasizing that the addendum's distinct nature and the professionals' insider status required separate analysis under bankruptcy rules for contracts and professional retention.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought by parents against a doctor and hospital, alleging that negligence during an amniocentesis caused brain damage to their fetus, who died after birth, along with related claims for the parents' injuries. The plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add claims for lack of informed consent regarding the amniocentesis and a subsequent tubal sterilization, punitive damages, negligent post-birth care by the hospital, and various technical clarifications. The court granted the motion to amend in most respects under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which favors liberal amendment absent undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice, but denied or limited certain amendments as futile because they were barred by the statute of limitations, such as restricting the post-birth negligence claim to damages sought on behalf of the infant only.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

Bristol-Myers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking rulings of invalidity, noninfringement, and unenforceability regarding Erbamont's U.S. Patent 3,803,124 on a process for making the cancer drug doxorubicin. Erbamont responded with a counterclaim alleging infringement under the recently enacted 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). The court granted Bristol-Myers summary judgment of noninfringement and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, holding that the 13 kilograms of bulk doxorubicin hydrochloride had been imported into the United States prior to the statute's February 23, 1989 effective date. The decision turned on the timing of physical arrival and customs custody in Puerto Rico, which the court found constituted importation before the law took effect.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Timothy Looney against the City of Wilmington and two police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his Fourth Amendment rights due to an allegedly illegal search of his building and excessive force used during his arrest, along with a state law battery claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the search claim, finding it reasonable because the plaintiff lacked a privacy interest in the apartment being searched, and on municipal liability due to insufficient evidence of a city policy or deliberate indifference. However, it denied summary judgment on the excessive force and battery claims because factual disputes existed regarding whether the plaintiff was handcuffed before the officers continued to strike him and the extent of force used.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Holly Farms Corporation's motion to remand a Delaware Chancery Court action back from federal court after defendant R. Lee Taylor II sought removal based on diversity jurisdiction. The underlying dispute concerned alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and interpretation of Holly Farms' stock bonus plan following Tyson Foods' acquisition of Holly Farms. Taylor, a Tennessee citizen, argued that the acquisition shifted Holly Farms' principal place of business from Memphis, Tennessee, to Arkansas, creating the requisite diversity for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. The court denied the petition for removal and granted the motion to remand, determining that Holly Farms remained a holding company with its principal place of business in Tennessee, as its assets, records, and operational direction stayed there despite the merger and changes in some personnel.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which Drexelbrook Controls sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Magnetrol International from making or selling two-wire admittance monitoring transmitters that allegedly infringed Drexelbrook’s U.S. Patent No. 4,146,834. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. To obtain such relief, a patentee must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits along with the other traditional injunction factors. Drexelbrook failed to make that showing because it relied primarily on the statutory presumption of validity and did not present sufficient independent evidence to overcome Magnetrol’s arguments that the patent was anticipated by prior art such as the Fay patent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement action brought by Erbamont Inc., the exclusive U.S. licensee of U.S. Patent No. 3,803,124 (a process patent for producing the anticancer drug doxorubicin), against Cetus Corporation and its subsidiary for importing bulk doxorubicin allegedly made using the patented process. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join indispensable parties—the patent owner Farmitalia and its parent Erbamont N.V.—or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, where a related declaratory judgment action involving the same patent was pending. The court denied the motion in full, holding that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 2201 and that the requested relief was not warranted. The decision rested on analysis of the parties' relationships, the license agreement granting Erbamont enforcement rights in its own name, the existence of parallel litigation in Delaware, and the factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for venue transfer, including judicial economy and avoidance of inconsistent results.

business & regulatoryprocedure