FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[10/10] US v. DeFilippo
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to racketeer, illegal gambling, and conspiracy to collect credit through extortionate means are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the district court erred when it admitted testimony from a high-ranking member of the Bonanno Crime Family; 2) the murder of George Sciascia was not relevant conduct because it was not related to a conspiratorial object of which defendant was convicted; 3) the Government failed to rebut an alleged presumption that a person withdraws from a conspiracy when he is arrested; and 4) the district court erred in refusing to hold a hearing on that issue.

[10/09] US v. Banks
Order for a new trial after convictions on drug-related counts is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that information not disclosed by the government, which could have been used to impeach its expert witness, was material, and that defendant was prejudiced by the nondisclosure.

[10/06] Brown v. Delaware
Convictions of two defendants for felony murder, manslaughter, robbery, and conspiracy are reversed and remanded where defendants had presented some credible evidence supporting their alibi defense and, upon their request, an alibi instruction was therefore required.

More...

Intellectual Property

[10/10] Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.
In an infringement suit over a patent describing a system for tracking articles such as semiconductor wafers in a manufacturing facility, judgment as a matter of law of invalidity due to obviousness is affirmed where: 1) a prior patent disclosed the same "sensing means" as plaintiff's patent; 2) the invention obtained in plaintiff's patent would hav been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art; and 3) a change in claim construction resulting from decisions on prior appeals was grounds for defendant to amend its defenses.

[10/10] Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.
In an infringement suit over two patents relating to the separation of synchronization signals from video signals, rulings on validity, infringement, and inequitable conduct are affirmed where: 1) on an invalidity claim, the burden of production was properly shifted to plaintiff to show evidence that the asserted claim was entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art, and an earlier patent did not provide adequate written description support showing that the inventor was in possession of the invention claimed in the later patent; 2) there was no clear error in a finding of infringement of one of the disputed claims; 3) another claim was not invalid for indefiniteness; and 4) the inventor did not commit inequitable conduct by failing to disclose certain prior art.

[10/08] Motorola Inc. v. Amkor Tech., Inc.
In a suit over the terms of a patent license agreement (PLA) between plaintiff and a third party, affecting the transfer of an interest in the patents to defendant, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not judicially estopped from changing its argument during trial about the relationship between two sections of the PLA; 2) the "law of the case" did not prevent defendant from changing its arguments on an earlier remand; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact.

More...