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

Twin City Bakery Workers & Welfare Fund v. Astra Aktiebolag

Plaintiffs allege that defendants monopolized and attempted to monopolize the market for the gastric acid inhibiting drug Prilosec through "sham" litigation, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws. The core allegation is that defendants listed numerous later-obtained patents in the Orange Book, knowing they would not proscribe generic versions, solely to trigger automatic 30-month stays on generic drug approvals by initiating infringement lawsuits. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which provides antitrust immunity for attempts to influence governmental action. The court, presided over by District Judge Rakoff, found that because claims of infringement for four of the six asserted patents had proceeded beyond summary judgment and two to trial, the litigation was not objectively baseless and thus enjoyed Noerr-Pennington immunity. Allegations of fraud in obtaining or listing patents were dismissed due to lack of particularity as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court also determined that merely listing the patents did not cause the monopoly extension; rather, it was the subsequent infringement lawsuits. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice due to a lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham LitigationPatent InfringementFDA RegulationsOrange BookGeneric Drug ApprovalMonopolizationMotion to Dismiss
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
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. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
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. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,417 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