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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

This case involves a patent infringement suit concerning United States Patent No. 3,690,495, a child-resistant closure. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the patent was invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court examined the patent's clutching and biasing functions, comparing them to prior art patents including Maki, Turner '411, and Petronelli. The court found that 'Turner '495' was a combination patent comprising elements already present in prior art and that its elements performed the same functions, thus failing the test for non-obviousness. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, declaring the patent invalid.

Patent LawChild-Resistant ClosureObviousnessSummary Judgment35 U.S.C. § 103Combination PatentPrior ArtPatent InvalidityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Clutching Mechanism
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sorias v. National Cellular USA, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case where Plaintiffs Yeoshua Sorias and Zilicon Accessories LLC alleged patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition against two groups of defendants: Prong Defendants (Yishai Z. Pliner, Lloyd Gladstone, and Prong, LLC) and NC Defendants (National Cellular USA, Inc., Mark Grossman, Zeev Grossman, and David Grossman). Plaintiffs claimed their patented detachably integrated battery charger design for mobile phones was infringed. The court granted Prong Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the design patent and dismissed unfair competition claims as federally preempted. For NC Defendants, the court dismissed claims regarding provisional patent rights and trade secret misappropriation, holding that a 'new product idea' is not a protected trade secret. All remaining state law claims against NC Defendants were dismissed without prejudice, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction given ongoing state court litigation. The case is currently stayed pending a USPTO review of the '486 Patent.

Patent InfringementTrade Secrets MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentDesign PatentProvisional Patent RightsLicense AgreementNon-Disclosure AgreementFederal Preemption
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1982

Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.

This case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Rohm and Haas Company against Crystal Chemical Company, Joe Eller, and American Rice Growers Exchange. Rohm and Haas alleged infringement of its patent (U.S. Patent 3,816,092) for a selective post-emergence propanil herbicide. The court found the patent to be valid, enforceable, and infringed by the defendants. Additionally, the court rejected the defendants' defenses of laches, estoppel, and various antitrust counterclaims, including those alleging fraudulent patent procurement and predatory practices. As a result, Rohm and Haas was awarded injunctive and monetary damages, specifically lost profits, but punitive damages and attorney's fees were not granted.

Patent InfringementHerbicidesPropanilSelective HerbicidePost-emergence HerbicideRice CultivationAntitrust LawSherman ActClayton ActPatent Validity
References
344
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sears Ecological Applications Co. v. MLI Associates, LLC

This case involves a judicial review by the District Court of a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals and Interferences concerning patent validity. Sears Ecological Applications Company (SEACO) sought review, while MLI Associates (MLI) moved for summary judgment to affirm the Board's decision. The Court affirmed the Board's decision that SEACO's '310 patent was invalid due to obviousness. However, the Court reversed the Board's decision regarding SEACO's '325 patent, declaring it valid, finding that the prior art taught away from using chloride salts as required by the patent. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's decision concerning MLI's claims 43 and 44, barring them as untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b).

Patent LawJudicial ReviewPatent ObviousnessClaim ConstructionPatent InvalidityDeicing CompositionsAnti-icing AgentsMolecular Weight RangesChloride SaltsUntimely Applications
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 67 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