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

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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

Alco Standard Corp. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Aleo Standard Corporation sued Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation for patent infringement concerning ultrasonic bore inspection systems. Westinghouse sought dismissal, arguing that Section 19 of the TVA Act provides an exclusive remedy against TVA for patented inventions used in conjunction with TVA, thereby precluding direct claims against its contractors. The court concurred, holding that Section 19 grants TVA the authority to use patented inventions and establishes a sole recourse for compensation against TVA, extending protection to contractors acting with TVA's authorization. Consequently, the court dismissed Aleo's patent infringement claims against Westinghouse related to TVA work due to failure to state a claim and dismissed other patent infringement claims for improper venue. Additionally, the court dismissed the pendent state unfair competition claims against Westinghouse.

Patent InfringementTVA ActGovernment ContractsExclusive RemedyVenueUnfair CompetitionStatutory InterpretationFederal AgenciesEminent DomainIntellectual Property Rights
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 299 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