Home (page 200)

Tag Archives: U.S. District Court – Eastern District

DuPont Engineer’s Suit Dismissed (access required)

A male African-American engineer at defendant DuPont’s Spruance facility in Richmond loses on summary judgment his pro se race discrimination suit alleging disparate treatment in his performance reviews and retaliation. The record here establishes that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate ...

Read More »

Fee Award for Frivolous ‘Inequitable Conduct’ Claim (access required)

In this patent infringement case involving a drug to treat erectile dysfunction, in which the Norfolk U.S. District Court entered judgment for Pfizer in its suit to protect a drug that has generated $10 billion in sales, the court now ...

Read More »

No Discovery of Docs Used by Deponent (access required)

Although a former executive for defendant corporation may have referred to two privileged documents during his deposition by plaintiff, plaintiff’s conclusory allegations about the executive’s use of the documents do not require production of the documents under Fed. R. Evid. ...

Read More »

Supplemental Damages Ordered in Patent Case (access required)

In the wake of a Norfolk federal jury’s $115 million award to a small technology company that claimed Verizon Communications Inc. infringed on its patents for interactive television when Verizon developed its FiOS cable system, the Norfolk U.S. District Court ...

Read More »

Court Denies Change in Injunction (access required)

In this litigation involving patents-in-suit relating to electronic sourcing systems, which allow prospective buyers to locate items to buy from multiple electronic catalogs, a Richmond U.S. District Court denies defendant’s motion to modify and clarify an injunction against defendant’s continued ...

Read More »

Two-Year Limitations Bars Hip Replacement Claim (access required)

The Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses a removed diversity action against hip replacement manufacturers as barred by Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations; equitable estoppel does not apply because patient waited more than two years after a product recall. In September ...

Read More »