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

Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Golf 600 Inc.

Plaintiff Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation, a manufacturer of karaoke tracks under the "Sound Choice" brand, filed a trademark infringement action against Clontarfscouse LLC, which operates "The River Roadhouse" bar. Clontarfscouse hired Nightstar DJ and Karaoke, which used Slep-Tone's trademarked products without a license. Slep-Tone warned Clontarfscouse about the infringement, but the defendant continued to host Nightstar's events. The court applied the Inwood test for contributory trademark infringement to Clontarfscouse as a service provider with sufficient control over the infringing conduct and knowledge of the specific infringement. Finding that Nightstar infringed Slep-Tone's trademarks and that Clontarfscouse was contributorily liable, the court granted Slep-Tone's motion for summary judgment on liability for federal trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentContributory LiabilityKaraoke TracksSound ChoiceService Provider LiabilityWillful BlindnessIntellectual PropertyFederal Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

KBL CORP. v. Arnouts

KBL Corp., a residential home builder, brought an action against architects Robert A. Arnouts and Arnouts Associates Architects, Inc. for contribution, indemnification, and inducement to infringe. KBL had previously settled two copyright infringement lawsuits filed by Frank Betz Associates, Inc. related to home designs. KBL asserted that Arnouts, who modified and approved the designs, was liable for the infringement. The court analyzed each claim, concluding that federal and New York State law do not provide a right to contribution or indemnification among co-infringers in this context, nor an independent claim for inducement to infringe distinct from contributory infringement. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the case was closed.

Copyright InfringementContributionIndemnificationInducement to InfringeFederal Common LawNew York State LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Co-infringersSettlement
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PRO-TECH WELDING AND FABRICATION INC. v. Lajuett

Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. sued its former employees and related corporations for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract concerning its 'Sno Pusher' snow removal device and the '755 patent. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no infringement and patent invalidity, while Pro-Tech cross-moved to dismiss counterclaims. The core dispute revolved around whether defendants' 'boxed gusset' design infringed on the '755 patent's 'vertical reinforcing channels.' The court found no literal infringement, distinguishing 'channels' from 'boxed gussets' based on common meaning and prosecution history. It also rejected infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel, as the patentee had previously narrowed the claim scope during prosecution to distinguish prior art. As a result, the patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) were dismissed with prejudice, while state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Patent InfringementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDoctrine of EquivalentsProsecution History EstoppelSnow Removal EquipmentSnow PusherBox PlowClaim Construction
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Saint Gobain Corp. v. Armstrong Glass Co.

The defendant was found in contempt of court for infringing the plaintiff's patent despite a prior lawful injunctive order. Following this, the defendant appealed the contempt finding and sought to stay proceedings before a special master, who was appointed to determine the plaintiff's damages. The Court acknowledged the general rule that interlocutory judgments directing an accounting for patent infringement are usually not stayed during appeal, especially when appellate courts have jurisdiction to review such judgments to prevent wasted time and money. However, the Court highlighted that the defendant had previously admitted infringement in a consent judgment on October 9, 1968, and the current contempt arose from continued infringement post-judgment. The special master's role was to assess damages from this subsequent infringement to determine a remedial fine to compensate the plaintiff and uphold the Court's authority. Ultimately, the defendant's application for a stay pending appellate review was denied.

Patent InfringementContempt of CourtInjunctive OrderStay of ProceedingsAppellate ReviewSpecial MasterDamages AssessmentConsent JudgmentCivil ContemptRemedial Fine
References
3
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

Acrison, Inc. v. Schenck Corp.

This is a patent infringement action where Acrison, Inc. alleges that Schenck Corporation infringed two of its patents for "loss-in-weight" feeder systems. These systems utilize microprocessor circuitry to maintain a steady discharge rate by mitigating external disturbances. Schenck moved for summary judgment, asserting non-infringement, specifically challenging the interpretation of Element H of Claim 1 of the 102 patent concerning signal comparison and disturbance response. The court found no literal infringement but denied summary judgment, concluding that a reasonable jury could find equivalence between the two systems under the doctrine of equivalents, and rejected Schenck's arguments regarding file history estoppel and independent patentability.

Patent infringementLoss-in-weight feederMicroprocessor circuitryDoctrine of equivalentsSummary judgmentClaim interpretationFile history estoppelDigital circuitryAnalog circuitryIndustrial control systems
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. A & E Television Networks

Yaina Williams sued A & E Television Networks, Lifetime Entertainment Services, FYI Television Network, and John Doe for copyright infringement. She alleged that her treatment for a reality show titled “Married at 1st Sight,” registered with the Copyright Office, was infringed by the defendants’ series “Married at First Sight.” Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the treatment consisted of unprotectable common stock ideas and scenes a faire, and lacked substantial similarity to their show. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the treatment’s elements were primarily unprotectable scenes a faire and that the overall concept and feel of the two works were significantly dissimilar, thus dismissing the copyright infringement claim. Consequentially, claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement were also dismissed.

Copyright InfringementContributory InfringementVicarious InfringementReality Television ShowLiterary TreatmentSubstantial SimilarityScenes A FaireIdeas vs ExpressionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves claims of patent infringement by Data Race, Inc. (plaintiff) against Lucent Technologies, Inc. (defendant) regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,764,639 for a "System and Method for Providing a Remote User With a Virtual Presence To An Office." Data Race sought a preliminary injunction and damages, while Lucent counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The court denied Data Race's motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on damages, and found no literal or equivalent infringement by Lucent's Virtual Telephone product. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc., on the issue of infringement. The court declined to fully address Lucent's defenses of patent invalidity and unenforceability, deeming them moot.

Patent InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionVirtual PresenceTelephonyData NetworkingVoice over IPPrior ArtPatent Validity
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donna v. Dodd, Mead & Co., Inc.

Natalie Donna, co-author of the children's book *Boy of the Masai*, sued her co-author, Peter Larsen, and publisher, Dodd, Mead & Company, alleging copyright infringement, conspiracy to infringe, and unfair trade practices. Donna's claims arose from three subsequent books by Larsen and his wife, which used a similar format to their original collaboration. Donna contended that *Boy of the Masai* was a composite work, implying separate copyrights for her text. The court, however, applied Second Circuit precedent, ruling that *Boy of the Masai* is a joint work, where co-owners cannot infringe their own copyright. Consequently, the court dismissed the copyright infringement and conspiracy claims, and the unfair trade practices claim was also dismissed due to a lack of pendent jurisdiction, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.

copyright lawjoint authorshipintellectual propertypublishing contractslegal precedentfederal courtjurisdictionliterary propertyco-ownershipinfringement claims
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 262 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