Xxxx v. General Motors Corporation, oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motion in limine was heard on April 21, 2009 for the California state court cases. Also, as previously reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs have again moved to certify a damages class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ economic expert. Oral arguments on the summary judgment motions and motion to strike were heard on March 6, 2009. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Patent Infringement Litigation On December 23, 2008, Xxxxx Technology Partnership v. General Motors Corporation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In Xxxxx, the plaintiff alleges that we infringe four U.S. patents related to “Internal Combustion Engine with Limited Temperature Cycle” by making and selling Duramax diesel engines, which embody its patented technology. The plaintiff has informed us that it believes that its royalty damages would be significantly more than $100 million. On April 14, 2009, Xxxxx Technology Partnership v. DMAX, Ltd. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The defendant DMAX is a joint venture with Isuzu that is 60% owned by GM and that manufactures and assembles the mechanical and other components of Duramax diesel engines for sale to GM. The plaintiff alleges that DMAX infringes three U.S. patents related to “Internal Combustion Engine with Limited Temperature Cycle” by making and selling Duramax diesel engines. The complaint requests damages and an injunction. DMAX is defending Xxxxx on several grounds, including non-infringement and invalidity of the patents.
Xxxx v. General Motors Corporation, oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motion in limine was heard on April 21, 2009 for the California state court cases. Also, as previously reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also vacated the certification of the damages class and remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for determination of several issues concerning federal jurisdiction and, if such jurisdiction still exists, for reconsideration of that class certification on a more complete record. On remand, plaintiffs have again moved to certify a damages class, and defendants again moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ economic expert. Oral arguments on the summary judgment motions and motion to strike were heard on March 6, 2009.
Xxxx v. Bd. of Com'rs of Delaware County (1987), Ind. App., 503 N.E.2d 436." Xxxxxxxx v.
Xxxx v. Pacifica Senior Living Management, LLC, et al. Case No.
Xxxx v. Quixote, Energy Absorption Systems, Inc., Safe-Hit, Inc., Department of Transportation et al., Circuit Court of Hawaii, No. 04-1-1330-07 SSM In March 2005 and late December 2004 the Company and EAS were served in this matter that alleges a bicyclist hit a Safe-Hit surface mount post and suffered head injuries when his helmet broke. The case has been tendered to the Company’s insurance carrier. The amount of damages is not alleged and discovery has not begun so a risk assessment cannot be made at this time. 124
Xxxx v. W hitehaven Trustees ( 1 8 8 8 ) 5 2 J.P. 3 9 2 .
Xxxx v. Gateway 2000, Inc. affirms the “in-the-box” warranty. In Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., et al, Judge Xxxxxxxxxxx authored an opinion that nicely supplements ProCD.50 Addressing an arbitration clause that was included as an in-the-box51 terms and conditions leaflet for a computer purchase, the court upheld the arbitration clause as binding.52 As a result, the court extended the principle of the shrinkwrap license to computer hardware.53 The facts were simple. The plaintiff ordered their Gateway 2000 computer system over the phone.54 Upon receiving the computer, the plaintiff skimmed the enclosed list of terms.55 The terms were alleged to govern unless the customer returned the computer within 30 days of receipt.56 Included in the list of terms was an arbitration clause, requiring the use of an arbitrator in the case of a dispute.57 After keeping the computer for “more than 30 days,” the plaintiff complained about “its components and performance.”58 Retaining Xxxxxxx & Xxxxx,59 the plaintiff made some bold allegations: notably, that the “product’s shortcomings [made] Gateway a racketeer.”60 If demonstrated, this could have led to treble damages61 50 Hill v. Gateway 2000, 105 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997). Interestingly, Xxxx was argued before the court just shy of seven months after ProCD. 51 Id. at 1148. 52 Id. at 1151. 53 Id. at 1150. 54 Id. at 1148. 55 Id. (“they concede noticing the statement of terms but deny reading it closely enough”). 56 Id. 57 Id. 58 Id. 59 Edelmen & Xxxxx bills itself as “Consumer Protection and Class Action Lawyers” at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx (last visited 2/16/07). 60 Hill, 105 F.3d at 1148. 61 Damages that, by statute, are three times the amount that the fact-finder determines is owed. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004). under RICO62 for the plaintiffs.63 Gateway sought to enforce the arbitration clause.64 The central issue, thusly, was whether the arbitration clause on the in-the-box warranty was enforceable.65 Citing, inter alia,66 ProCD, the court held that ProCD should not be limited to software: it is “about the law of contract, not the law of software.”67 Moreover, “[p]ractical considerations support allowing vendors to enclose the full legal terms with their products.”68 If vendors did not have the ability to enclose the terms within the packaging of their products, Judge Xxxxxxxxxxx noted the practical inefficiency of having a cashier read the terms of a contract to a purchaser of a computer.69 Judge Xxxxxxxxxxx and the court declin...
Xxxx v. Micic, M.; Hu, D.; Lu, H. P. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2004, 126, 9374.
Xxxx v
