Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge who oversees the two related multidistrict litigations involving the recall of approximately 10.8 million continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) sleep apnea devices dismissed a third-party complaint filed in one of the MDLs by the manufacturer of recalled CPAP machines, which asked that the manufacturer of equipment that uses ozone to clean and disinfect the machines be forced to contribute to settlement agreements and ruled that a putative class action against the same party “is an entirely new lawsuit” and dismissed it from the MDL docket.
HOUSTON — Asbestosis is a unique disease that requires a huge dose of exposure and doesn’t occur idiopathically, and an opinion reversing a summary judgment ruling based on direct evidence of exposure from a single source doesn’t rewrite the state’s causation law, a family tells the Texas Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A partially split panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 19 said a federal judge in North Carolina was right to deny judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to electronic cigarette entity R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (RJR), affirming a jury’s award of more than $95 million against the company for infringing on another company’s pod-based tobacco vapor technology.
NEWARK, N.J. — Repeatedly citing Hutchins v. HP Inc. and noting that the parties “seem to agree” that the retirement plan terms permitted the challenged allocation, a New Jersey federal judge on Dec. 19 dismissed a lawsuit over use of forfeited nonvested retirement plan contributions with leave to amend within 30 days.
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Third District Court of Appeals on Dec. 18 said a trial court erred in bifurcating claims against third-party defendants in a condominium construction defects case, saying two trials before different juries would be inconvenient and prejudicial and would violate Texas’ proportionate liability scheme.
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Dec. 18 issued a final judgment holding that an electronic ticketing company’s patents are invalid, dismissing with prejudice patent infringement claims the company brought against Ticketmaster LLC and Live Nation Worldwide Inc.; the judge had granted the defendant companies’ motion to dismiss the claims in an in-chambers order in November because the patents were directed at patent-ineligible abstract ideas.
BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Supreme Court on Dec. 18 affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homebuilder in a construction defects suit, agreeing with the lower court that the homeowners’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and rejecting the homeowners’ request to overrule J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int’l, Inc. and adopt the repair doctrine.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Texas federal judge was wrong to deny judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no direct infringement to a defendant software company, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel said Dec. 18, holding that the judge should have found that the alleged infringement could be attributed to the company’s merchants but not the company itself.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s denial of a pharmaceutical company’s application for a fast-track approval of its new drug was not arbitrary and capricious, the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, affirming a summary judgment award to the FDA.
PHILADELPHIA — A receiver appointed in South Carolina for defunct talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels Inc. (WCD) had no authority to place the company into bankruptcy in New Jersey because he never applied to be appointed as ancillary receiver, so the Chapter 11 petition approved by WCD’s board is valid and a New Jersey federal bankruptcy judge’s denial of the receiver’s bid to dismiss the case should stand, the debtor told the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 18 in a consolidated appeal of the ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge rightly granted summary judgment in favor of a defendant film studio and associated entities that were accused by a writer of copying elements of a stage play and derivative works she wrote in their ongoing television drama series, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, agreeing with the trial judge that there was no substantial similarity between the works.