Case Summaries

Admiralty

[08/25] In Re: S. Scrap Material Co. LLC
In an action in which the United States sought to bring a personal liability claim under the Wreck Act for removal of a sunken drydock, a judgment lifting and modifying an injunction to allow the liability claim to proceed is affirmed where: 1) the government could state a personal liability claim under the Wreck Act for the recovery of its actual cost of removing a sunken vessel from a navigable waterway without alleging that the vessel owner negligently caused the sinking; and 2) the Limitation of Liability Act did not apply to limit the recovery by the government of wreck removal costs under the Wreck Act.

[08/25] US v. MV Sanctuary
Warrant authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to inspect the M/V Sanctuary for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is affirmed where the EPA has authority to obtain an administrative warrant to carry out its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

[08/22] Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P'ship
In maritime claim against defendants for alleged nonpayment of contracts, decision in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the contracts between plaintiffs and defendants are maritime contracts; 2) the notice requirements of Rule B were met; 3) equitable factors did not weigh in favor of vacating the maritime attachments; and 4) a Rule 11 hearing was not required.

More...

Commercial Law

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

[08/27] 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.

[08/26] Grynberg v. Total S.A.
In two suits against oil companies raising tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims for unjust enrichment involving potential oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and laches.

More...

Intellectual Property

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

[08/25] Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
In a dispute over two patents for tobacco curing processes, judgment of unenforceability of both patents due to inequitable conduct and summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims due to indefiniteness are reversed and remanded where: 1) the evidence did not support findings of either deceptive intent or materiality with respect to the inequitable-conduct claims; and 2) a claim term construed by the district court clearly delineated the bounds of claim scope and was therefore not indefinite.

[08/21] Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc.
In a suit claiming infringement of a patent for an ink-jet printing method, summary judgment of invalidity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to create an issue of fact on whether defendant's prior patent inherently anticipated certain claims in plaintiff's patent; and 2) other claims were properly invalidated as obvious in light of the anticipation finding.

More...