• Intellectual Property Rights

Patent

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. GEOFFREY WHITE (decided on 15.05.08)

Contractual dispute over patent - Whether Plaintiff can preserve its objections to the disputed instructions and what was the effect of such preservation - Whether application of agency law to the exclusion of Patent Law in the disputed instructions was prejudicial error

For an objection to a jury instruction to be valid, the objection must be made "on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection and it is not valid if the plaintiff preserves its objection to the disputed instructions. Further, the issues of patent ownership are distinct from questions of inventorship. If the Patent and Copyright agreement discloses the intention of the parties to apply the principles of patent and inventorship law then the rules of agency will have no application. Hence if disputed instructions were given under agency law to the exclusion of Patent Law, it can be stated that it was a prejudicial error.

• Contract

DELAWARE VALLEY SURGICAL V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON (decided on 30.04.08)

Disagreement over direct purchaser - whether the plaintiff who bought its supply through a distributor of defendant and not directly from defendant, was "direct purchaser" and therefore not entitled to sue for antitrust damages

Section 4 of the Clayton Act broadly authorizes that "any person who shall be injured" by a violation of the antitrust laws may seek treble damages from the offending party.

A party could not defend an antitrust suit brought by a middleman by showing that the actual injury caused by the overcharge was suffered by the end user. Under the direct purchaser rule if the plaintiff has to prove antitrust violation against the defendant it has to prove anti trust violation against the defendant. It has to prove that it was the immediate and direct purchaser of the products of the defendant.

OCWEN ORLANDO HOLDINGS CORP. v. HARVARD PROPERTY TRUST, LLC (decided on 12.05.08)

Dispute over selection clause in an agreement - Whether selection clause waived only right to transfer the suit or it waived the right to remove the case from state to federal court.

To "transfer" means to "convey or remove from one place or one person to another. The plain meaning of the word "transfer," suggests that the selection clause waived the right to remove in addition to its right to transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.

• Labour and Industrial Laws

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (decided on 08.05.08)

Dispute over jurisdiction under labour law - Whether the NLRB had jurisdiction to hear the dispute of unfair labour practices in attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement under the National Labor Relations Act

There are two quite different bodies of federal labor law, the law of the Railway Labor Act for railroad and airline employees, and the law of the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act for most other employees. When the traditional railway labor organizations act on behalf of employees subject to the Railway Labor Act in a dispute with carriers subject to the Railway Labor Act, the organizations must be deemed, pro tanto, exempt from the National Labor Relations Act.