Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.

47 Citing briefs

  1. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 110 MOTION to Strike Roxane's Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands. . Document

    Filed March 12, 2015

    The requirement of clean hands “gives wide sweep to the equity court’s exercise of discretion ‘in refusing to aid the unclean litigant.’” Gaudiosi v. Mellon, 269 F.2d 873, 881 (3d Cir. 1959) (citing Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 815). “Public policy not only makes it obligatory for courts to deny a plaintiff relief once his ‘unclean hands’ are established but to refuse to even hear a case under such circumstances.”

  2. Lawrence B. Lockwood et al v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case 28

    Filed October 22, 2009

    See C.F.R. § 1.555(a); Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 818; Thomas Decl. ¶¶ 18-26.

  3. Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company et al

    MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

    Filed February 8, 2016

    See, e.g., Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am., Inc., 287 F.3d 866, 870 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizing Lanham Act plaintiff’s acts of deception give rise to unclean hands); FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Sierra Media, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1197 (D. Or. 2013) (plaintiff’s misleading advertising gave it unclean hands in Lanham Act suit); Emco, Inc. v. Obst, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12118, at *13-18 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2004) (same). Since even acts falling short of illegality can support an unclean hands defense, see Precision, 324 U.S. at 815, Pom’s deceptive conduct actually adjudged to be in violation of the law clearly meets the “inequitable” standard. See Adler, 219 F.3d at 873, 877-78 (holding that participation in scheme to steal from the Nigerian Government and bribe Nigerian officials in violation of California laws and the FCPA established plaintiff’s unclean hands); Metro Motors v. Nissan Motor Corp., 339 F.3d 746, 750-51 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Well-accepted general principles of equity support [the] contention that a statutory violation gives a party unclean hands.”)

  4. Nilssen, et al v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed November 19, 2009

    324 U.S. at 819. 7 See, e.g., Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 815 (unclean hands doctrine “prevents a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression”); JOHN N. POMEROY, POMEROY’S EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, (Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1905) (“Pomeroy”), § 397 at 657 (attached hereto as Exhibit 13) (the unclean hands doctrine “says that whenever a party, who as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him . . . .”). Case: 1:04-cv-05363 Document #: 303 Filed: 11/19/09 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:3759 - 7 - validity of any claim, (see supra, at p. 4).

  5. Forever 21, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

    Filed October 29, 2018

    4. Elements Required to Establish Forever 21’s Fourth Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands a. Gucci America’s conduct was knowingly and intentionally illegal or otherwise unconscionable; and b. Was related to Gucci America’s cause of action, i.e., material to Gucci America’s claimed trademark rights. See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 815 (1945); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Stagecoach Properties, Inc., 685 F.2d 302, 308 (9th Cir. 1982). J. Brief Description of Forever 21’s Key Evidence in Opposition to Each of Gucci America’s Counter-Claims and Affirmative Defenses First Affirmative Defense: Failure to State a Claim Forever 21 will present the following evidence showing that Gucci America has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: 1.

  6. Oracle America, Inc. v. Terix Computer Company, Inc., et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 21, 2015

    Moreover, the conduct at issue “need not necessarily have been of such a nature as to be punishable as a crime or as to justify legal proceedings of any character. Any willful act concerning the cause of action which rightfully can be said to transgress equitable standards of conduct is sufficient . . . .” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co., 324 U.S. at 815. Courts applying California law examine “the nature of the misconduct at issue and the misconduct’s equitable impact on the relationship between the parties and the injuries claimed.”

  7. NUPSON v. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS, LLP et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed March 15, 2019

    Id. at 543, 222; see also Shapiro v. Shapiro, 204 A.2d 266, 268 (Pa. 1964) (“while ‘equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives’... as to other matters, it does require that they shall have acted fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue...”) (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814-15, (1945)). As in Pedrick and Shapiro, Defendants Schnader and Rosenfield have acted in a manner that is both “unfortunate” and “inexcusable.”

  8. Genentech, Inc. et al v. Amgen Inc.

    ANSWERING BRIEF in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss Based upon Defendant's Unenforceability Counterclaims and to Strike Defendant's Eleventh Affirmative Defense

    Filed March 7, 2019

    Determining whether a claim is plausible is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). V. ARGUMENT A. Amgen’s Eleventh Affirmative Defense of Inequitable Conduct and Its Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim Count 3 Are Legally Sufficient It is black letter law that Genentech may not seek to enforce rights that were obtained by fraud against the public. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945) (“The far-reaching social and economic consequences of a patent, therefore, give the public a paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies spring from backgrounds free from fraud or other inequitable conduct.”); see also Therasense Inc. v. Becton Dickenson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Inequitable conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement, that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent.”)

  9. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A.

    MOTION Rule 56

    Filed January 8, 2018

    Case 1:17-cv-00036-EGS-RMM Document 50 Filed 01/08/18 Page 15 of 24 11 and when it does, it will have defenses. Those defenses include laches, which considers whether there has been “inexcusable delay,” Daingerfield Island Protective Soc’y v. Lujan, 920 F.2d 32, 37 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); unclean hands, which considers whether there has been “inequitableness or bad faith,” see Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945); acquiescence, which can be proven with facts showing that the FDIC “knowingly permit[ted] [BANA] to deal with the subject matter under the belief that the transaction ha[d] been recognized,” Hazard Coal Corp. v. Ky. W. Va. Gas Co., 311 F.3d 733, 740 (6th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added); and equitable estoppel, which may turn on whether the FDIC’s “purpose [was] to invite action by [BANA],” ATC Petroleum, Inc. v. Sanders, 860 F.2d 1104, 1111 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Simply, a “heavily fact-dependent” claim such as unjust enrichment, Landis, 234 F. Supp. 3d at 205, cannot be resolved without both sides getting discovery.

  10. Snyders Heart Valve LLC v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed January 3, 2018

    As this Court has explained, Precision Instrument is one of a trio of Supreme Court cases that make clear that unclean hands requires “affirmatively fraudulent conduct such as perjury, bribery and the manufacturing of false documentation.” Golden Hour Data Sys. v. emsCharts, Inc., 2012 WL 3494366, *12 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2012), citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245 (1944) (manufacturing evidence by drafting fake scholarly article to trick and defraud the PTO), Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 809-10 (purposely false statement in PTO proceedings, followed by perjurious testimony), Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 243, 246–47 (1933) (patentee bribed prior user to sign false affidavit, which patentee then filed with the PTO). SJM has no evidence that Snyders or its counsel engaged in any misconduct, let alone egregious misconduct like perjury, bribery, or fabrication of evidence.