News
[12/29]
[01/24]
Job bias claims at record level
[01/11]
Pepsi Beverages pays $3.1M in racial bias case
[01/11]
Md. man's leave lawsuit lands in Supreme Court
[01/11]
Court:Judges cannot get involved in church dispute
More...
Articles
Whistleblowers
An employer generally may not take an adverse action against an employee (such as by firing, demotion, or suspension) because the employee reported a suspected violation of the law or other misconduct by the employer. Such employees are popularly known as "whistleblowers," and are protected by a number of federal laws.
More...
What is National Origin Discrimination?
National origin discrimination occurs when an individual is denied equal employment opportunities because of their ethnicity, their ancestor's ethnicity, their appearance, their accent or their perceived ethnic background. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their national origin in employment decisions, including hiring, termination, promotions, transfers, trainings, lay-offs and assignments.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[02/01]
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games, the district court's judgment of noninfringement upon stipulation is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface, and the parties based the stipulation of noninfringement on the district court's erroneous construction of this claim; and 2) the district court erred in its construction of the term "flexible."
[01/27]
Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.
In a patent infringement case involving a vehicle-mounted lamp, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity is reversed, its summary judgment of infringement is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment of nonliability for the defendant, where the district court committed reversible error in its holdings that: 1) a reasonable jury could find that a competing French patent failed to teach the required "conical beam of light;" and 2) the jury could have reasonably found the French patent to lack a lamp "adjacent to the window."
[01/23]
Falana v. Kent State University
In a suit against a university and inventors listed on a patent alleging that the plaintiff was an omitted co-inventor, the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to inventorship is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in construing the language of the claims; 2) error in the exclusion of certain exhibits did not result in substantial injustice and was harmless error; 3) the district court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff's contribution of the method used by the team of which he was a part for making the claimed compounds was enough of a contribution to conception to pass the threshold required for joint inventorship; and 4) the district court's exceptional case finding and award of attorney fees were not yet final and not properly before the court of appeals.
More...
|
