CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wurlitzer Co. v. Electrokey, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case concerning electronic pianos. The plaintiff, Wurlitzer, sued Electrokey, Rhythm Band, Moore, Chicago Musical Instrument, and Nippon Columbia for infringing four patents: Miessner '363, Miessner '512, Andersen '053, and Bode '997. The court found that the defendants' electronic pianos infringed claims of the Miessner '363 and Miessner '512 patents. However, the court found no infringement of the Andersen '053 patent and declared the Bode '997 patent invalid for lack of novelty. An injunction was granted against further infringement of the two Miessner patents, and the infringement by Nippon Columbia was deemed willful, laying a predicate for increased damages.

Patent InfringementElectronic PianoMusical InstrumentsPatent ValidityWillful InfringementInjunctionDamagesPatent LawMiessner PatentAndersen Patent
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogan v. Holland Patent Central School District

Petitioner, a food service worker, resigned from Holland Patent Central School District and later sought to withdraw her resignation. The Board of Education refused, leading the petitioner to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this refusal. The Supreme Court denied the relief sought, and the judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found that delivery of the resignation to the Board's Clerk constituted valid delivery to the Board, and subsequently, the resignation could not be withdrawn without the Board's consent. The decision not to consent by the Board was deemed to have a reasonable basis. Claims of harassment and constructive discharge, preceding the resignation, were properly referred to the Public Employment Relations Board.

ResignationPublic EmploymentSchool DistrictEmployee RightsWithdrawal of ResignationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCivil ServiceEmployer-Employee DisputeArticle 78 Proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VDP PATENT, LLC v. Welch Allyn Holdings, Inc.

This opinion addresses a patent infringement lawsuit brought by VDP Patent, LLC, against Welch Allyn Holdings, Inc. and Harold Ellis Drugs and Surgicals, Inc., concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,944,711 for an earwax removal method. The court undertook the task of construing several disputed terms within the patent's single claim, including "tip," "cylindrical shape in cross[-]section," "selected outside diameter," and "friction fit obviating fluid leakage." Key rulings include interpreting "otoscope" as a device with a light and lens for visual examination and clarifying that the method requires the operator to select a tip size appropriate for the patient's ear canal, forming a fluid-tight seal that prevents all leakage during the continuous irrigation procedure. Ultimately, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which sought to invalidate the patent on grounds of indefiniteness, concluding that the claim terms were sufficiently clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Patent InfringementClaim ConstructionPatent ValiditySummary JudgmentEar IrrigationMedical DevicesOtoscopeDoctrine of EquivalentsOrdinary Skill in the ArtPatent Specification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Dick

The Trustee of Bermec Corp. sued Arthur Andersen & Co. for negligence, among other claims. Andersen moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The parties had an agreement extending the limitation period if an action was "instituted" by March 31, 1974. Although the complaint was filed on March 21, 1974, Andersen was not served until April 2, 1974. The court ruled that under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 203(b)5, a claim is timely if the summons and complaint are delivered to the appropriate officer and served within sixty days. Applying this state law principle, the court found the action was timely instituted and denied Andersen's motion for partial summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsNegligencePartial Summary JudgmentFederal Bankruptcy ActCommencement of ActionService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesErie DoctrinePendent Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
Case No. ADJ7796275
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

MORTEN ANDERSEN vs. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed California's subject matter jurisdiction over Morten Andersen's cumulative injury claim as a professional athlete, due to sufficient work performed in the state. However, the WCAB rescinded the prior finding that liability related back to the New Orleans Saints, Andersen's first employer. This was because Labor Code section 5500.5 mandates liability be allocated to employers during the year preceding the last date of injurious exposure, and the Saints did not employ Andersen during that period. The case was returned to the trial level to join subsequent employers and properly allocate liability under section 5500.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryProfessional AthleteCumulative InjuryRelation Back DoctrineLabor Code Section 5500.5EmployersLiability AllocationInjurious Exposure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

Axel Johnson, Inc. moved under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint against Arthur Andersen & Co. The complaint was dismissed as time-barred under the Supreme Court's *Lampf* decision, which established a new retroactive statute of limitations. Johnson's motion is predicated on the newly enacted § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which purports to 'undo' *Lampf*'s retroactive application. Arthur Andersen opposed, arguing § 27A violates the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional. The court granted Johnson's motion, finding § 27A constitutional as it established a new and generally applicable rule for pre-existing cases, thereby not constituting an impermissible legislative reversal of a judicial decision. As a result, both Johnson's federal and related state claims were reinstated.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationSeparation of PowersDue ProcessVested RightsRule 60(b)Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991Section 27APendent Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.

This is a patent infringement suit where Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. (KEI) alleged that Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity) infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,022,003 (the ’003 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,505,820 (the ’820 Patent), with its roadside safety devices, the MPS-350 and TRACC. Trinity denied infringement and asserted the patents were invalid. The court granted KEI's motion for summary judgment regarding ownership of the patents. However, the court found that Trinity's MPS-350 and TRACC devices did not infringe the asserted claims of either the ’003 or the ’820 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, thus granting Trinity's motions for non-infringement. Furthermore, the court denied Trinity's motions for summary judgment regarding the invalidity of the ’003 and ’820 Patents, concluding that they were not invalid for lack of a written description or anticipation by prior art. The case was bifurcated, with equitable defenses to be addressed in a separate order.

Patent InfringementRoadside Safety DevicesCrash CushionsTruck-Mounted AttenuatorsSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionWritten Description RequirementAnticipationProsecution History EstoppelDoctrine of Equivalents
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1992

Medical Designs, Inc. v. Medical Technology, Inc.

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Medical Designs, Inc. (MDI) against Medical Technology, Inc. (MTI) and Gary Bledsoe, asserting infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 4,407,276 and U.S. Patent Des. 269,379. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing patent invalidity and unenforceability. The court found that claims 1-7 of the ’276 patent were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by prior art, and claims 1-8 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the entire ’276 patent was deemed unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by MDI's patent attorney for intentionally omitting material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office. While the ’379 design patent was found valid and enforceable, MDI failed to prove infringement. Consequently, the court awarded attorneys' fees and damages to MTI and Bledsoe against MDI and Floyd Hutson.

Patent infringementUtility patentDesign patentPatent invalidityPatent unenforceabilityPrior artObviousnessAnticipationInequitable conductAttorney's fees
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 84 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational