• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Apple Inc Vs. Samsung Electronics (Decided on 14.05.2012)

Preliminary injunction - Present Appeal filed against the order of the lower Authority whereby it denied the grant of the preliminary injunction

Held, Since the present court found that District Court's reasons for denying an injunction on the D'889 patent to be erroneous, the matter was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings. On remand, the Court should conduct a similar assessment of the balance of hardships with respect to the D'889 patent. To the extent that the Court found that the public interest factor cuts in favor of either side, it should weigh that factor as well in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction against Sam-sung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer. In sum, this Court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the D'087, D'677, and '381 patents. Further this Court vacated the order denying an injunction with respect to the D'889 patent and remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings on that portion of Apple's motion for preliminary relief.

• LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS

United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit

Geoffrey Crowther Vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation And Csx Transportation, Inc (Decided on 18.05.2012)

Present Appeal brought in a consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers'Liability Act 45 U.S.C. § 51 against the two railroad Defendants by a former employee

Held, The testimony of Appellant was an admission of malingering, the most convincing possible evidence, so powerful that its probative value, in light of the limiting instruction could not have been substantially outweighed by the danger of any prejudice that could be called unfair. This Court of course assumes that Appellant would have seen no occasion to make such an admission if the Court had not ruled the collateral source evidence admissible in the first instance but it was his own (or his lawyer's own) choice to incorporate the fact revealed by that evidence into an avowal of the intentional malingering that the railroads sought to show. Thus, however Court might analyze the merits of the pretrial ruling based on the information then before the Judge, the evidence at trial demonstrated beyond serious question that the disclosure of collateral benefits did not place him under any disadvantage that the facts did not fully warrant.