LATEST SUMMARIES

ANTITRUST & TRADE REGULATION, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INTERNATIONAL LAW, MANUFACTURING, PATENT
• Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage

ASSET FORFEITURE, COMMUNICATIONS LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• US v. Harrell

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Talbot

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• US v. Davis

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
• US v. Mayer

LATEST SUMMARIES

ANTITRUST & TRADE REGULATION, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INTERNATIONAL LAW, MANUFACTURING, PATENT
Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage, No. 06-55996, 06-56165
Where Lanham Act and state tort claims are based on a defendant's representation that someone infringed his patent, a plaintiff must show that defendant's representation was made in bad faith. In a suit against a French company that makes hose clamp pliers and its lawyers, brought by plaintiffs who sold similar pliers in the U.S. and alleged antitrust violations and malicious prosecution in a prior patent suit brought by defendant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-maker did not act in good faith or that it did not provide its law firm with facts in its possession that it "knew or should have known would defeat" the lawsuit; 2) defendant-firm could reasonably conclude that defendant-maker's infringement case was "tenable"; 3) Lanham Act and state tort law claims failed as plaintiffs did not present any evidence that defendants drafted or forwarded certain letters in bad faith; and 4) antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Read more...

ASSET FORFEITURE, COMMUNICATIONS LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Harrell, No. 07-10238
In a case involving unauthorized viewing of satellite television and the government's seizure of certain digital satellite television receivers and other hardware and software, partial denial of defendant's motion for return of property filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there must be a change to either the hardware or software of a telecommunications instrument that makes it more capable of obtaining unauthorized signals in order for it to be "modified or altered" under 18 U.S.C. section 1029(a)(7); 2) under such standard, certain receivers at issue were not modified or altered so as to constitute contraband per se; and 3) some other hardware and software was also not shown to constitute contraband per se. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, M&A, SECURITIES LAW
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Talbot, No. 06-55561
In an action brought by the SEC against defendant involving his trades on confidential information about the impending acquisition of LendingTree, which he received in his capacity as a Fidelity director, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendant can be held liable under the misappropriation theory because he traded on confidential information received in his capacity as a member of Fidelity's Board; but 2) a genuine issue of material fact as to the materiality of the information precluded judgment as a matter of law. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. Davis, No. 07-30219, 07-30220, 07-30226
denial of motions to suppress all evidence seized is affirmed where: 1) observations upon which law enforcement officers relied to obtain the warrant to search defendants' property were not made within the curtilage of their home; 2) thus, the warrant did not violate their rights; 3) with one exception, law enforcement officers did not violate a defendant's constitutional rights by questioning him, searching his person, searching his vehicle, and subsequently searching his property; and 4) any error in failing to suppress evidence found on defendant's person during a frisk, was harmless. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
US v. Mayer, No. 07-30274
A conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where the district court properly: 1) denied a motion to suppress, because officers had probable cause to believe that defendant lived at the residence they searched and the conditions of his probation authorized the search; 2) found that defendant's prior conviction for first-degree burglary in Oregon was a predicate "violent felony" under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA); and 3) found that two prior drug convictions were "serious drug offenses" under the ACCA. Read more...