In this case, Fort Lane Village LLC sued its insurer Travelers after the company denied coverage for fire damage to a vacant commercial building, relying on a policy exclusion for losses from vandalism when the property had been vacant more than 60 days. The court granted Fort Lane's partial summary judgment motion, holding that the term vandalism in the policy did not include arson given the policy's language and distinctions in case law. The court granted Travelers summary judgment on the remaining claims, dismissing the negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment counts as a matter of law. The rulings rested on contract interpretation under Utah law and the absence of facts supporting the extra-contractual claims.
K-Tec sued Vita-Mix for infringing its patents on a high-performance blending jar. After a ten-day jury trial, the jury found K-Tec's patents valid, that Vita-Mix willfully infringed them, and awarded K-Tec over $11 million in damages including lost profits and royalties. Vita-Mix moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing non-infringement, invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness from prior art, and lack of willfulness, while K-Tec sought enhanced damages, interest, costs, and a permanent injunction. The court denied all of Vita-Mix's post-trial motions, finding the jury verdict supported by the evidence on each issue, and granted K-Tec's motions in part by awarding enhanced damages, amending the judgment for interest and costs, and entering a permanent injunction.
The case concerned appeals from a bankruptcy court's rulings in an adversary proceeding brought by a Chapter 7 trustee against lender Winterfox, LLC, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosure requirements for two short-term loans totaling about $1.89 million secured by the debtor's Park City home. The bankruptcy court dismissed the TILA claims after finding the loans were primarily for business purposes and thus exempt from TILA, and it struck an amended complaint adding claims under the Utah Residential Mortgage Practices Act. On appeal, the district court affirmed the decision to strike the amended complaint as within the bankruptcy court's discretion but reversed the TILA dismissal, holding that Winterfox met the definition of a creditor under TILA because it originated the loans through a broker, and remanded for further proceedings on damages and fees while dismissing the lender's cross-appeal as moot.
QEP Field Services Company filed suit against the Ute Indian Tribe seeking to prevent the Tribe from restricting QEP's access to its Stagecoach Processing Plant and related expansion projects on tribal land. The parties had previously entered into a Surface Use and Access Concession Agreement that granted QEP access rights, required applications for new uses, and provided for arbitration of disputes along with a limited waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. After the Tribe obtained a preliminary injunction from the Tribal Court barring QEP's access, QEP asked the federal district court to enjoin the Tribe's actions. The court held that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to issue its injunction because the Agreement channeled disputes to arbitration and allowed direct recourse to federal court without exhaustion of tribal remedies. Finding that QEP satisfied the requirements for injunctive relief, the court granted QEP's motion and ordered the Tribe to restore access pending arbitration.
The case concerned cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of K-TEC's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,979,117 and 7,218,842, which relate to blender container designs, after the court had already found that Vita-Mix infringed certain claims. K-TEC argued that no prior art anticipated or rendered obvious the disputed claims, while Vita-Mix contended the patents were invalid based on references including Miller, Ash, Grimes, Prothe, and the K-TEC Square Jar. The court granted K-TEC partial summary judgment, ruling that several references fell outside the relevant prior art scope, that Ash did not anticipate two of the claims, and that Vita-Mix lacked sufficient evidence on other references, but denied full summary judgment for either party because genuine issues of material fact remained on whether Miller anticipated the claims, whether Ash anticipated the third claim, and whether combinations of references rendered the claims obvious. Vita-Mix's motion for summary judgment of invalidity was denied in full.
NexMed Holdings sued Beta Technologies and its president for patent infringement, alleging that their Beta Device for treating herpes-related skin conditions with electrical current infringed NexMed's U.S. Patent No. 5,133,352, which covers a method of applying electrical current to affected areas. The court granted NexMed's summary judgment motions on the defendants' affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct, patent misuse, and challenges to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It denied most of the defendants' multiple summary judgment motions seeking to invalidate the patent on grounds such as prosecution history estoppel, public use, non-usefulness, and failure to join inventors, as well as motions on intervening rights and willful infringement. The court partially granted the defendants' motions on denial of injunctive relief and limitations on monetary relief, and on damages calculations using net cash flow, while denying their request to file a second amended answer.