Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between two companies, Plaintiff Fuel Automation Station, LLC, and Defendant Energera Inc., both of which operate in the fuel industry and hold patents related to automated fuel delivery equipment. The conflict arose after Defendant, despite agreeing not to sue Plaintiff for patent infringement, initiated lawsuits against Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor for using Plaintiff’s equipment, alleging infringement of a Canadian patent (the 567 Patent).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially reviewed the case. The court found that the covenant not to sue included the relevant parties but was ambiguous regarding whether it covered the 567 Patent. The court applied ordinary rules of contract construction and the patent exhaustion doctrine, which led to the conclusion that the covenant did protect downstream users of Plaintiff’s equipment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on this basis. However, it found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the 567 Patent was included in the Patent Rights defined in the agreement, leading to a jury trial. The jury determined that the Patent Rights did cover the 567 Patent and that Defendant had breached the covenant not to sue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the covenant not to sue did indeed extend to downstream users under the patent exhaustion doctrine, meaning Defendant could not sue Plaintiff’s customers for using the equipment. Additionally, the appellate court agreed with the district court and the jury that the Patent Rights included the 567 Patent, thus supporting the finding that Defendant breached the covenant by suing Plaintiff’s affiliated entity and subcontractor. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "Fuel Automation Station v. Energera" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a developer and manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued several individual and corporate defendants for misappropriation of trade secrets, among other claims. The key individual defendant, S, was a former employee who developed a product called Poly-Crete for the plaintiff. After resigning, S started his own business and developed similar products, allegedly using the plaintiff’s trade secrets. The plaintiff claimed that S and other defendants, including companies that tested and used S’s products, misappropriated its trade secrets.The trial court conducted a bench trial in three phases. In the first phase, the court found that the plaintiff’s formulas for Poly-Crete and other products were trade secrets but ruled that the noncompete agreement S signed was unenforceable due to lack of consideration. The court also found that the plaintiff’s common-law confidentiality claim was preempted by the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).In the second phase, the court found that S and some defendants misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets to create products like ProKrete and ProSpartic. However, it ruled that other defendants, including Indue, Krone, ECI, and Merrifield, did not misappropriate the trade secrets as they did not know or have reason to know about the misappropriation. The court also granted attorney’s fees to Krone and ECI, finding the plaintiff’s claims against them were made in bad faith.In the third phase, the court ordered the defendants who misappropriated the trade secrets to disgorge profits and enjoined them from using the trade secrets. The court also sanctioned the plaintiff for attempted spoliation of evidence by its president, F, who tried to remove incriminating photos from the company’s Facebook page during the trial.The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on most issues but reversed the judgment regarding the enforceability of the noncompete agreement and the standard for determining misappropriation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these issues. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law

Dyax Corporation performed research for Ares Trading S.A. and licensed patents to Ares, including some held by Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT Patents). Ares used Dyax’s research to develop a cancer drug, Bavencio, and agreed to pay royalties to Dyax based on the drug’s sales. The royalty obligation outlasted the lifespan of the CAT Patents. The District Court held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys Co., which prohibits royalties that extend beyond a patent’s expiration.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware found that Ares’ royalty obligation did not violate Brulotte because it was not calculated based on activity requiring the use of inventions covered by the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court characterized the royalties as deferred compensation for Dyax’s pre-expiration research. Additionally, the court noted that Ares’ royalty obligation could run until the latest-running patent covered in the agreement expired, which included patents other than the CAT Patents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that Ares’ royalty obligation was not calculated based on activity requiring post-expiration use of the CAT Patents, and thus, Brulotte did not apply. The court emphasized that the royalties were based on sales of Bavencio, which did not require the use of the CAT Patents after their expiration. The court also rejected Ares’ argument that Dyax violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, noting that Ares received all the benefits promised under the agreement. The court concluded that Dyax did not breach any obligations under the agreement, and Ares’ royalty obligation remained enforceable. View "Ares Trading SA v. Dyax Corp" on Justia Law

Wanda Bowling entered into a contract with the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission to manage its information technology functions. When the contract ended, Bowling allegedly withheld login information for three online accounts, leading the Commission to sue for breach of contract. Bowling counterclaimed for libel and misclassification of her employment status. The district court dismissed the misclassification counterclaim and granted summary judgment to the Commission on all other claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Bowling's counterclaim for misclassification and denied her motion to amend it, citing untimeliness. The court also granted summary judgment to the Commission on its breach of contract claim, concluding that Bowling's login information constituted intellectual property and that she had breached the contract by not certifying the erasure of confidential information. The court awarded the Commission $956.67 in damages. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment on Bowling's libel counterclaim, citing a qualified privilege defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's finding of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the Commission had adequately alleged damages exceeding $75,000. However, the appellate court found that the contract was ambiguous regarding whether the login information constituted intellectual property or other materials covered by the contract, and that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the damages. Therefore, it reversed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Bowling's motion to amend her counterclaim for misclassification, finding no abuse of discretion.On the libel counterclaim, the appellate court agreed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on a qualified privilege without giving Bowling notice. However, it affirmed the summary judgment on the grounds that the Commission's statements were substantially true. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling" on Justia Law

A physician in Puerto Rico, Dr. Jaime Salas Rushford, had his board certification suspended by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) after ABIM concluded that he had improperly shared board exam questions with his test prep instructor. ABIM sued Salas Rushford for copyright infringement in New Jersey. Salas Rushford counterclaimed against ABIM and several ABIM-affiliated individuals, alleging that the process leading to his suspension was a "sham."The counterclaims were transferred to the District of Puerto Rico, where the district court granted ABIM's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Salas Rushford leave to amend his pleading. The court found that Salas Rushford failed to state a claim for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tort claims against the ABIM Individuals. The court also dismissed his Lanham Act claim for commercial disparagement.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Salas Rushford's claims. It held that ABIM had broad discretion under its policies to revoke certification if a diplomate failed to maintain satisfactory ethical and professional behavior. The court found that Salas Rushford did not plausibly allege that ABIM acted with bad motive or ill intention, which is necessary to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law.The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim, noting that Salas Rushford failed to allege actual consumer deception or intentional deception, which is required to state a claim for false advertising. Finally, the court upheld the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint, citing undue delay and lack of a concrete argument for why justice required an amendment. View "American Board of Internal Medicine v. Salas-Rushford" on Justia Law

In 2018, John Burns and Rajeev Arora, representing Moca Financial Inc., engaged in discussions with Manoj Baheti, represented by Yash Venture Holdings, LLC, about a potential investment. The alleged agreement was that Yash would provide $600,000 worth of software development in exchange for a 15% non-dilutable ownership interest in Moca. However, subsequent documents and communications indicated ongoing negotiations and changes in terms, including a reduction of Yash's proposed stake and a shift from software development to a cash investment. Yash eventually refused to sign the final documents, leading to the current litigation.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed most of Yash's claims, including breach of contract, fraud, and securities fraud, but allowed the equitable estoppel and copyright infringement claims to proceed. Yash later voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, and the district court entered final judgment, prompting Yash to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Yash did not adequately allege the existence of an enforceable contract, as there was no meeting of the minds on the material term of whether the ownership interest was non-dilutable. Consequently, the breach of contract claim failed. Similarly, the promissory estoppel claim failed due to the lack of an unambiguous promise. The fraud and securities fraud claims were also dismissed because they relied on the existence of a non-dilutable ownership interest, which was not sufficiently alleged. Lastly, the breach of fiduciary duty claims failed as there was no enforceable stock subscription agreement to establish a fiduciary duty. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Yash Venture Holdings, LLC v. Moca Financial, Inc." on Justia Law

C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), a medical device company, held patents on a vascular graft and entered into a licensing agreement with Atrium Medical Corporation (Atrium) to settle a patent infringement lawsuit. The agreement required Atrium to pay Bard a 15% per-unit royalty on U.S. sales until the U.S. patent expired in 2019 and on Canadian sales until the Canadian patent expired in 2024. Additionally, Atrium was to pay a minimum royalty of $3.75 million per quarter until the FDA approved the iCast stent for vascular use or rescinded its approval for all uses. Atrium ceased minimum royalty payments after the U.S. patent expired, leading Bard to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona held a bench trial and found that the minimum royalty provision was primarily intended to compensate Bard for U.S. sales, thus constituting patent misuse under Brulotte v. Thys Co. The court concluded that the provision violated Brulotte because it effectively extended royalties beyond the patent's expiration based on the parties' motivations during negotiations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court clarified that the Brulotte rule requires examining whether a contract explicitly provides for royalties on the use of a patented invention after the patent's expiration. The court held that the licensing agreement did not violate Brulotte because it provided for U.S. royalties only until the U.S. patent expired and Canadian royalties until the Canadian patent expired. The minimum royalty payments were not tied to post-expiration use of the U.S. patent but were instead based on Canadian sales, which continued to be valid under the Canadian patent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by considering the parties' subjective motivations and reversed the judgment for Atrium on Bard’s breach of contract claim. View "C.R. BARD, INC. V. ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Bruce Molzan, a well-known chef, filed a lawsuit against Bellagreen Holdings, LLC, and other associated entities and individuals, alleging trademark infringement and other claims under the Lanham Act and Texas law. Molzan claimed that he had been using the "RUGGLES" trademarks for over forty years and that the defendants misused these trademarks after a forced sale of his restaurants. He alleged that the defendants continued to use the "RUGGLES GREEN" trademark and domain name without authorization, causing consumer confusion.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all of Molzan's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Molzan's allegations were conclusory and did not establish a connection between the defendants and the third-party websites causing the confusion. The court also determined that the Settlement Agreement between the parties addressed the alleged infringements and provided a remedy for such transgressions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Molzan's complaint contained well-pleaded factual allegations that made his claims facially plausible. The court noted that the allegations established a likelihood of confusion due to the defendants' continued use of the "RUGGLES" trademarks. The court also found that the district court erred in assuming the veracity of the defendants' assertions over Molzan's well-pleaded allegations. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Molzan's federal and state trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and state trademark dilution claims. The court also reversed the dismissal of Molzan's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. Additionally, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the Web Defendants and the denial of Molzan's motion for leave to amend his complaint. View "Molzan v. Bellagreen Holdings" on Justia Law

Dr. John Insall, an orthopedic surgeon, developed and patented knee replacement devices, which he licensed to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. In return, Zimmer agreed to pay royalties to Insall, and later to his estate after his death. When Insall’s last patent expired in 2018, Zimmer ceased royalty payments, claiming the obligation had ended. The dispute was submitted to arbitration, where the Estate prevailed. Zimmer then sought to vacate the arbitration award in district court, arguing that continuing royalty payments violated public policy. The district court confirmed the arbitration award.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case. Zimmer argued that the arbitration award should be vacated based on public policy grounds, citing Supreme Court decisions in Brulotte v. Thys Co. and Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, which prohibit collecting royalties on expired patents. The district court rejected Zimmer’s argument and confirmed the arbitration award, leading to Zimmer’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review over arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court found that the arbitration panel had correctly interpreted the 1998 amendments to the agreement, which untethered the royalty payments from the patents themselves, making them based on the marketing and branding of the NexGen Knee products. Consequently, the court held that the arbitration award did not violate public policy as outlined in Brulotte and Kimble. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Insall’s Estate. View "Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Insall" on Justia Law