- Uber Eats sued DoorDash for hogging big buyers of “first-party delivery services”.
- Uber Eats will need to show that DoorDash’s efforts to lock big chains into using its “first-party delivery services” block Uber Eats from access to a “substantial” part of the market.
- False Claims Act requires proof that drug-maker’s support for patient co-pays caused purchases of its drugs. https://lnkd.in/gTSQKmSz.
- New Texas court of appeals rules that new Texas business court lacks jurisdiction on cases that “commenced” before 9-1-24.
- Profits that trademark infringer must disgorge may not include profits its affiliates received.
- Claimant seeking one-on-one arbitration did not show that other party refused to arbitrate and therefore could not appeal refusal to undo consolidation of over 7,000 cases.
- Lack of express time limit on promise to assign license doomed attempt to rescind contract.
- Claim that died before bankruptcy filing date stays dead.
- Fact that arbitration award applied federal (copyright) statute did not confer jurisdiction to vacate it.
- Drug maker’s scheme to inflate prices harmed direct buyers, not remote payers, for purposes of RICO claims.
- Ripeness doctrine made claim for cost of repair premature pending insurer’s demand for appraisal.
- Online buyer of fitness services did not agree to arbitration clause.
- Chip buyers failed to allege antitrust claim because they could not license Qualcomm’s patent rights from any other source.
- 25-percent benchmark for class-action fee awards required new look at award of 45 percent.
- Public disclosure bar and absence of original information precluded qui tam claim relating to fraud in bidding for wireless spectrum rights.
- In case against accountants, “anti-fracturing rule” barred use of 4-year limitations period for fraud claims.
- Trust had sole right to pursue bankrupt LLC’s tort claims, but LLC members could sue for breach of contract that named them as parties.
- Prior art made patent on detecting arrhythmia obvious.
- Patent on easy to remove vest didn’t limit “pull cord” to one the user pulls “directly”.
- Limits in early patent didn’t restrict scope of later one.
- Patent statute doesn’t allow grant of patent having no term.
- Class members that missed opt-out deadline didn’t “constructively” opt out by filing their own cases.
- Short seller’s caustic report didn’t show fraud caused drop in stock’s price.
- Consulting firm didn’t describe what it claimed counted as a trade secret well enough.
- Lease barred gas producer from deducting costs to process and fractionate gas before calculating royalties owing to land owners.
- Contractor’s insurance claim for loss stemming from subcontractor’s failure to perform didn’t damage subcontractor.
- Lanham Act required trademark infringer to forfeit all payments it received from infringing sales.
- Late demand forfeited right to jury trial.
- Clause that barred “damages” didn’t preclude unjust enrichment award.
- Details that did not appear in provisional patent application did not count as prior art. https://lnkd.in/e6CD346N
- Switch in phrasing of drug patent—from “wherein the liquid solution” did not include propylene glycol to “consisting of” a list of items other than propylene glycol—disclaimed any formulation with propylene glycol in it.
- I wonder–does Rule 408 protect the Meta chief’s talks with the President?
- The “i” in “iVoters.com” did not overcome bar to trademark protection for “highly descriptive” marks. https://lnkd.in/gRwnuMnR
- Firm that misused merger target’s trade secrets owed target disgorgement for 26-month head start plus damages for breach of NDA.
- Party couldn’t raise new claim construction points on appeal from adverse judgment.
- Fraud victims lacked privity with firm whose salesman scammed them into buy-ing Ponzi scheme through an outside confederate, and they therefore could not enforce arbitration agreement against salesman’s firm.
- Ground in IPR for deeming patent obvious (and therefore invalid) did not rely “solely” on “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications”.
- Jury could find that label using three “great big” but different letters infringed trade dress in label design.
- Contract’s use of federal standard didn’t provide basis for suit in federal court.
- New Jersey law could displace choice of Texas on question of forcing transport workers to arbitrate.
- Pursuit of TCPA claims didn’t amount to sham that would forfeit first amendment defense.
- LLC didn’t show grounds for diversity jurisdiction.
- State Department must disclose names of people who worked on target for cutting greenhouse gas.
- Failure to compare services ERISA plan’s record-keeper performed with services other plans’ record-keepers rendered doomed claim that plan paid too much.
- Law firm’s disloyalty didn’t harm client.
- Non-literal parts of software didn’t show minimal creativity copyright law requires.
- High cost lender’s participation in bench trial on amount of legal restitution waived right to jury trial.
- Investor who ordered sale of his holdings during COVID-19 outbreak couldn’t blame broker for doing what he asked.
- Inventors’ doubts about whether CRISPR system they invented could edit DNA didn’t preclude conclusion that they conceived the invention.