ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this copyright-infringement action, plaintiff Apple, Inc. and defendant Psystar Corporation have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Apple’s motion is GRANTED and Psystar’s motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Apple Inc. launched its Macintosh computer in 1984 and its Mac OS X operating system... More...   $1 (11-15-2009 - CA)

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. sued Intel Corp. on unfair competition and antitrust violation theories claiming that Defendant wrongfully offered rebates and discounts to monopolize the computer chip business worldwide. Plaintiff claimed that Intel obtained control of about 80% of the microprocessor market by using illegal tactics to maintain a monopoly in the market.

Intel denied wrongdoin... More...   $1250000000 (11-12-2009 - )

The issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the class action filed by the attorney general in this case was properly certified. Under former article 21.21, section 17 of the insurance code, the Department of Insurance (the "Department") may ask the attorney general to institute a class-action lawsuit to recover from an insurer damages for injuries done to the insurance-buying public. See for... More...   $0 (11-09-2009 - )

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal by
appellant Century Indemnity Company (“Century”) from two
orders of the District Court, one entered May 18, 2006,
granting a motion of appellee Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”) to compel arbitration of a
disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance
agreements, and one entered... More...   $0 (10-23-2009 - )

This is an appeal from a judgment against a general partner for wrongful dissociation, breach of a noncompete clause, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations or business expectations, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil conspiracy. We vacate the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROU... More...   $0 (10-21-2009 - ID)

Six members of a joint venture sued two other members, primarily claiming breaches of fiduciary duties. The joint venture, most of whose members were Anchorage physicians, owned a medical services condominium on Laurel Street and leased it out for use as an ambulatory surgical center. The plaintiffs claimed in part that the joint venturer defendants and others were liable for moving the surgical c... More...   $0 (10-08-2009 - AK)

To provide Durango, Colorado, residents and Southern Ute Indian tribe members with greater access to kidney dialysis and other nephrology services, Mercy Medical Center, a non-profit hospital, together with the tribe, sought to entice Dr. Mark Bevan to join the hospital’s active staff. When Dr. Bevan declined, the hospital hired somebody else. To convince that physician and others to settle in D... More...   $0 (09-30-2009 - CO)

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Prometheus”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 04-CV-1200, 2008 WL 878910 (S.... More...   $0 (09-17-2009 - CA)

This is a patent case. Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868 (“the ’868 patent”), 5,547,933 (“the ’933 patent”), 5,618,698 (“the ’698 patent”), 5,756,349 (“the ’349 patent”), and 5,955,422 (“the ’422 patent”). The patents relate to the production of the protein erythropoietin (“EPO”) using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”)... More...   $0 (09-15-2009 - )

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

We venture into the world of motocross racing to determine whether federal trademark law protects a motorcycle apparel company’s use of a stylized “O” on its products. ONE INDUSTRIES v. O’NEAL DISTRIBUTING 11599

I

A

Motocross is a popular form of off-road, rough terrain motorcycle racing. Jim O’Neal Distributing, Inc. (“O’Neal”), is a leader in the industry. Fo... More...   $0 (08-24-2009 - CA)

In 2006, the City of Minneapolis (the “City”) amended its taxicab ordinance to uncap the number of transferable taxicab licenses it issues, thereby opening a previously restricted market. The Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition (the “Coalition”), a group comprising holders of approximately seventy-five transferable taxicab licenses, sued the City, asserting federal and state constitutional v... More...   $0 (07-14-2009 - MN)

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“Act” or “1996 Act”), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified in part at 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-261, 271), created a complex federal scheme to encourage competition in local telephone service markets previously dominated by state-sanctioned local exchange carrier monopolies. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 371-72, 377-80 (1999). Sections 251 and... More...   $0 (06-08-2009 - AZ)

This appeal is about whether the plaintiff, Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc., using antitrust statutes drafted in the late 19th century, has successfully stated claims in connection with the administration of the Internet domain name system, so essential to the operation of our sophisticated 21st century communications network. The district court ruled that the plaintiff failed. With the ben... More...   $0 (06-05-2009 - CA)

In this case, the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,935,507 (the ’507 patent), occasions litigation in both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Virginia District Court granted the motion of Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively Lupin) for summary judgment of noninfring... More...   $0 (05-18-2009 - VA)

Plaintiff Partner & Partner, Inc., appeals from the district court’s decisions (1) granting summary judgment to defendants ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and Michigan Fuels, Inc., on the breach of contract, antitrust, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships claims; and (2) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to assert new claims of fraudu... More...   $0 (05-04-2009 - MI)

J.R. Simplot Company, Simplot Phosphates, LLC, and Simplot Pipeline, LLC (collectively “Simplot”) sued Chevron Pipeline Company, Chevron Chemical Company, and Chevron U.S.A., Inc., (collectively “Chevron”) for failure to defend and indemnify Simplot pursuant to two sales agreements. Chevron denied its liability and asserted counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favo... More...   $0 (04-24-2009 - UT)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by ... More...   $0 (04-08-2009 - NH)

When the Deer Valley Resort Company (“DVRC”) was developing its world-renowned ski resort in the Wasatch Mountains, it sold parcels of land within the resort village to third parties, while reserving the right of approval over the conduct of certain ancillary businesses on the property, including ski rentals. For about fifteen years, DVRC granted permission to Cole Sports and plaintiffappellan... More...   $0 (02-28-2009 - CO)

{1} This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the prices of cigarettes sold in New Mexico. We affirm the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Liggett and Lorillard; we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson, and ... More...   $0 (02-27-2009 - NM)

Plaintiff-Appellant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kaiser”) sued Defendants-Appellees Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) and Geneva Pharmaceuticals (“Geneva”) for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and analogous provisions of California law. Kaiser brought a claim under Section One of the Sherman Act against both Abbott and Geneva, and a claim under Section Two against only Abb... More...   $0 (01-15-2009 - CA)

This appeal involves the applicability of the public trust doctrine to private oceanfront property the owners maintain exclusively for their own recreational enjoyment.

In 1995, defendants Jack and Joyce Kassin bought an oceanfront property in the Village of Loch Arbour that the previous owners had operated as a commercial beach club. This property has approximately 650 feet of frontage al... More...   $0 (12-11-2008 - nj)

Plaintiffs Native American Distributing and John Dilliner filed suit in federal court against the Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company (“SCTC”), which is an enterprise of the Seneca-Cayuga Indian Tribe, and three individuals who had been officers of SCTC (the “Individual Defendants”). SCTC and the Individual Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that the ... More...   $0 (11-20-2008 - OK)

¶1 South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. (South West) appeals from a grant of summary judgment on its taking and tort claims against the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (the District). Based on our decision in West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, 200 Ariz. 400, 26 P.3d 1171 (App. 2001), Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 45-173 (1994), and Arizona’s ... More...   $0 (11-12-2008 - AZ)