16 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Patent Certiorari Petitions Denied in 2018

    WilmerHaleOctober 1, 2018

    Petition denied 4/2/18.CAFC Opinion, CAFC ArgumentR+L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corp., No. 17-980Questions Presented:May a court determine that a patent claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 1 of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) without analyzing the requirements of the individual claim steps?Do Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) prohibit a court from entering a summary judgment finding that an invention is ineligible for patent protection when the record contains uncontroverted, relevant evidence establishing that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea?Cert. petition filed 1/9/18, waiver of respondent Intermec Technologies Corp. filed 3/9/18, conference 3/29/18.

  2. How To Prove “Loss” for Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

    Dorsey & Whitney LLPNick AkermanMarch 11, 2010

    In essence, summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., only where, on the basis of undisputed material facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Importantly, to defeat summary judgment the non-moving party may not rest upon a “mere scintilla” of evidence, but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

  3. Vitamins Online, Inc. v. HeartWise, Inc., d/b/a NatureWise, No. 2:13-CV-982-DAK, 2016 WL 5106990 (D. Utah Sept. 19, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    The initial burden is on the moving party to show that “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the movant has met its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specificfacts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

  4. In its most consequential ruling of the year, Tennessee Supreme Court modifies Tennessee’s summary judgment standard, adopts federal “put up or shut up” rule.

    Daniel HorwitzDaniel A. HorwitzDecember 9, 2015

    [2]Id. The federal summary judgment standard was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).[3]Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1989).

  5. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Patent Certiorari Petitions Denied in 2018

    WilmerHaleJuly 1, 2018

    Petition denied 4/2/18.CAFC Opinion, CAFC ArgumentR+L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corp., No. 17-980Questions Presented:May a court determine that a patent claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 1 of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) without analyzing the requirements of the individual claim steps?Do Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) prohibit a court from entering a summary judgment finding that an invention is ineligible for patent protection when the record contains uncontroverted, relevant evidence establishing that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea?Cert. petition filed 1/9/18, waiver of respondent Intermec Technologies Corp. filed 3/9/18, conference 3/29/18.

  6. Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Patent Certiorari Petitions Denied in 2018

    WilmerHaleApril 1, 2018

    Petition denied 4/2/18.CAFC Opinion, CAFC ArgumentR+L Carriers, Inc. v. Intermec Technologies Corp., No. 17-980Questions Presented:May a court determine that a patent claim is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 1 of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) without analyzing the requirements of the individual claim steps?Do Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) prohibit a court from entering a summary judgment finding that an invention is ineligible for patent protection when the record contains uncontroverted, relevant evidence establishing that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea?Cert. petition filed 1/9/18, waiver of respondent Intermec Technologies Corp. filed 3/9/18, conference 3/29/18.

  7. A Case That Everyone Knows: Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., Decided 22 Years Ago Today

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergOctober 26, 2017

    Following the lead of a number of other states, the Supreme Court imported into New Jersey’s summary judgment practice the principles of three decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).The core holding of Brill, later implemented by an amendment to Rule 4:46-2(c), the summary judgment rule, was as follows: “Consistent with this national trend, we hold that under Rule 4:46-2, when deciding summary judgment motions trial courts are required to engage in the same type of evaluation, analysis or sifting of evidential materials as required by Rule 4:37-2(b) in light of the burden of persuasion that applies if the matter goes to trial.”

  8. Romeo & Juliette Laser Hair Removal, Inc. v. Assara I LLC, No. 08 CV 442 (DLC), 2016 WL 815205 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    Once the moving party has asserted facts showing that the non-movant’s claims or affirmative defenses cannot be sustained, “the party opposing summary judgment may not merely rest on the allegations or denials of his pleading; rather his response, by affidavits or otherwise as provided in the Rule, must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). “[C]onclusory statements, conjecture, and inadmissible evidence are insufficient to defeat summary judgment,” Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co.

  9. No Privity? The Enforceability of a Direct Insurance Policy Between an Insured and a Reinsurer

    Goldberg SegallaDecember 8, 2016

    The nonmoving party cannot rely on unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions in attempting to survive a summary judgment motion. Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). Rather, the non-moving party must respond “by pointing to sufficient cognizable evidence to create material issues of fact concerning every element as to which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”

  10. Failure to Keep Advertising Claims Current Creates Literal Falsity

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPNovember 7, 2016

    United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. (Great Harbor Neck, New Shoreham, R.I.), 960 F. 2 d 200, 204 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). “To succeed in showing that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, ” the moving party must “‘affirmatively produce evidence that negates anessential element of the non -moving party’ s claim,’ or, using ‘evidentiary materials already onfile . . . demonstrate that the non-moving party will be unable to carry its burden of persuasion at trial.