Civil Litigation - Page 8
This is FindLaw's collection of Civil Litigation articles, part of the Litigation and Disputes section of the Corporate Counsel Center. Law articles in this archive are predominantly written by lawyers for a professional audience seeking business solutions to legal issues. Start your free research with FindLaw.
Civil Litigation
Civil Litigation Articles
-
On January 23, 2004, Judge Philip M. Pro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued his decision in Symbol Technologies/Cognex Corporation v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, applying the doctrine of prosecution laches to hold certain key Lemelson bar code and machine vision patents unenforceable. Lemelson has 30 days to appeal Judge Pro's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. -
On April 19, 2004, HUD issued proposed regulations for the conversion of the 2530 process to electronic submissions. This rule, once implemented, would require participants in HUD-insured mortgage programs, Section 8 programs, and other programs to file 2530s electronically and to disclose participants on all levels of their organizational structure (beyond the three tiers currently required). -
This article discusses the Supreme Court's recent rulings in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., Murphy v. United Parcel Service Inc., and Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg. -
This article discusses the California Supreme Court's decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Association. -
A recent decision in the long-running battle between Rambus and Infineon Technologies over the enforcement of Rambus's patents and Rambus's role in a standard-setting organization spells dire consequences for failure to preserve evidence when litigation to enforce intellectual property rights is contemplated. The decision also articulated a duty to preserve evidence in connection with anticipated intellectual property enforcement that has potentially sweeping breadth. -
A little noticed Superior Court decision in December may have broad implications for developers of real estate. In dismissing a lawsuit filed by members of the community against a real estate developer in Pierce v. Mulhern, the Superior Court recognized apparently for the first time in Massachusetts that real estate developers are afforded the protections of the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP ("strategic litigation against public participation") statute. -
Perhaps the greatest surprise we encounter when working with lawyers from other jurisdictions and in-house counsel is when discussing the commencement of actions in Minnesota. Although Minnesota follows the federal rules closely in many respects, Minnesota does not follow the federal rules on commencement of an action. As we will discuss below, this difference can be extremely important to both plaintiffs and defendants when an action is commenced in Minnesota. -
On April 29, 2004, upon the vote of a majority, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a reconsideration of the ruling in Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., reopening the question of whether maintaining an interactive Web site and advertising on the Internet can make a party subject to a court's jurisdiction. This decision may affect airlines and aviation related companies which sell their products and services via their Web sites. -
In any proposed certification, the opponent can analyze the class definition for legal sufficiency. If the class definition is legally sufficient, the opponent can analyze the likely jury issues presented for trial in the cases of the absent class members, to formulate the jury issues that can be submitted in the class representative's case, and to ascertain whether the answers to those jury issues will enable the trial court to enter a final judgment in the cases of the absent class members. -
For many years, the real estate industry has taken for granted that pre-dispute jury waivers negotiated in leases, purchase and sale agreements and loan documents will be enforced in California. These waivers have been widely used to resolve disputes by the court, while avoiding many of the potential perils of a trial by jury, such as excessive or inadequate damage awards, jury nullification, bias or prejudice against corporations, delay, inconsistent fact finding, misunderstanding of the law and outright juror misconduct.