Archive for November 2015
Orthofix, Inc. v. Hunter
By: Brian Gauthier In Orthofix, Inc. v. Hunter,[i] the Sixth Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio holding that a non-disclosure provision (“NDP”) for confidential information does not only cover trade secrets but also that the District Court misinterpreted Texas law when it held the “NDP” to be unenforceable…
Read MoreThe Difficult Standard of Proof for Consumer Confusion: Eli Research, LLC v. Must Have Info, Inc.
By: Emily Wolfford The Lanham Act,[1] also known as the Trademark Act of 1946 (“the Act”), is an act that has long been disputed for clarification.[2] The Act was created with the intention to prohibit any false designation of a trademark for the purpose of preventing confusion for consumers in the market. This is most…
Read MoreEspinoza v. Dimon
By: Megan Doyle In September, the Delaware Supreme Court answered a question at the request of the Second Circuit regarding gross negligence and shareholder derivative suits.[1] The Second Circuit was concerned with correctly applying principles of Delaware law, and requested the Delaware Supreme Court review the following question: Where a shareholder demands that a board…
Read MoreEastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Cach, LLC C.A.
By: Nick Enns Equitable subrogation is an equitable doctrine which allows one who has discharged the debts of another to succeed the rights of the satisfied creditor. In Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Cach, LLC (ESB)[1], the Supreme Court of Delaware made a majority ruling holding that the doctrine of equitable subrogation does not apply…
Read MoreDeciphering the fair value standard: Merion Capital L.P., v. BMC Software Inc.
By: Betty J. McNeil In Merion Capital L.P., v. BMC Software Inc., C.A. No. 8900-VCG, 2015 WL 67586 at *1-51 (Del. Ch. Oct. 21, 2015), the Chancery of the state of Delaware held that the merger stock price of $46.25 was the most persuasive indication of fair value.[1] In fiscal years 2011 to 2013, BMC,…
Read MoreAuthors Guild v. Google, Inc.
By: Joanna Scleidorovich Beginning in 2004, Google, Inc. (Google) began what is known as the Google Books project and Google Library Project, a compilation of over twenty million books scanned into a digital library for purposes of establishing a publically available search function.[1] Google allows users to search for specific terms or keywords within the books…
Read MoreStanislaus Food Prods. Co. v. USS-POSCO Indus.
By: Alexandra Cain In Stanislaus Food Prods. Co. v. USS-POSCO Indus., the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, USS-POSCO based on the plaintiff’s, Stanislaus, failure to provide specific evidence of a conspiracy between the defendants in violation of state and federal anti-trust laws. Stanislaus,…
Read MoreO’Bannon v. NCAA
By: Alex Mcleod On September 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit decided that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) amateurism rules for student-athletes are pro-competitive and subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Rule of Reason.[1] In O’Bannon v. NCAA, the Court decided to allow members of the NCAA to give scholarships for the full cost of…
Read MoreJoseph B. Doerr Trust v. Cent. Florida Expressway Auth.
By: William Warmke Joseph B. Doerr Trust v. Central Florida Expressway Authority considers the process of eminent domain under Florida law and how attorney fees should be included in the award when the process sought is excessively litigious.[1] The Orlando–Orange County Expressway Authority (“Authority”) began a condemnation proceeding to acquire 9.81 acres of land, identified…
Read MoreIn re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig.
By: Benjamin McCarty Today it is difficult to visit a website and not notice the presence of multiple advertisements, or “ads,” all of which seem to know your shopping habits better than you do. This process of third party advertisers delivering content to webpage visitors’ browsers is highly technical, and it involves a number of…
Read More