Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-15-2006
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. - 05-130 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FONT SCAPS="1">EBAY INC. V. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EBAY INC. etal. v . MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05130.Argued March 29, 2006Decided May 15, 2006 Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondents subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondents motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F.3d 1323, 1339. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-17-2006
Gonzales v. Oregon - 04-623 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 GONZALES V. OREGON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. v . OREGON etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04623.Argued October 5, 2005Decided January 17, 2006 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia , the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances classified in any of its five schedules. The Attorney General may add, remove, or reschedule substances only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters, he must accept the findings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). These proceedings must be on the record after an opportunity for comment. The dispute here involves controlled substances listed in Sched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-2006
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. - 04-1329 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. V. INDEPENDENT INK, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC. etal. v . INDEPENDENT INK, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 041329.Argued November 29, 2005Decided March 1, 2006 Petitioners manufacture and market printing systems that include a patented printhead and ink container and unpatented ink, which they sell to original equipment manufacturers who agree that they will purchase ink exclusively from petitioners and that neither they nor their customers will refill the patented containers with ink of any kind. Respondent developed ink with the same chemical composition as petitioners ink. After petitioner Tridents infringement action was dismissed, respondent filed suit seeking a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Tridents patents on the ground that petitioners are engaged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-18-2006
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng. - 04-1144 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 AYOTTE V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERNNEW ENG. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AYOTTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEWHAMPSHIRE v . PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 041144.Argued November 30, 2005Decided January 18, 2006 New Hampshires Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, in relevant part, prohibits physicians from performing an abortion on a pregnant minor until 48 hours after written notice of such abortion is delivered to her parent or guardian. The Act does not require notice for an abortion necessary to prevent the minors death if there is insufficient time to provide notice, and permits a minor to petition a judge to authorize her physician to perform an abortion without parental notification. The Act does not explicitly permit a physician to perform an abortion in a medical emerge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-23-2006
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. - 04-597 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. V. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. v . SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC., dba CONAGRA REFRIGERATED FOODS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 04597.Argued November 2, 2005Decided January 23, 2006 After respondent ConAgra warned companies selling equipment and processes for browning precooked meats that it intended to protect its rights under its patent for that process, petitioner Unitherm, whose president had invented the process six years before ConAgra filed its patent application, and one of ConAgras direct competitors jointly filed suit in an Oklahoma federal court. As relevant here, they sought a declaration that ConAgras patent was invalid and unenforceable and alleged that ConAgra had violated 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to enforce a patent obtained by fraud on th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-04-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1967; [2006(109)FLR1009]; JT2006(5)SC452; 2006(4)KarLJ461; 2006(2)KLT68(SC); (2006)IILLJ762SC; RLW2006(3)SC2202; 2006(5)SCALE227; (2006)5SCC180; 2007(1)SLJ11(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 5887/1997 and 6105-6107/1997. By the impugned judgment, the order passed by a learned Single Judge was set aside.2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authority under The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'), the appellant Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber (P) Limited (appellant in C.A. No. 4497/2000) (in short 'Lingegowd') filed a writ petition praying for setting aside the orders on the ground that since its establishment of providing security personnel to various organization was not a scheduled employment as detailed in the Schedule to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Schedule') and as no specific Notification was issued in that behalf, the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. The writ petitions were allowed holding that the workmen of Lingegowd were not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-29-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC712; 2007(1)ALD109(SC); I(2007)BC33(SC); [2007]135CompCas1(SC); (2007)1CompLJ1(SC); 2006(5)CTC753; 135(2006)DLT151(SC); (2007)1MLJ929(SC); 2006(12)SCALE585; (2008)
ORDER, 2004. (ii) It shall come into force at once.2. Definition. - Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 means the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 made under Section 9 read with Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.3. Fee for filing of an appeal to Debts Recovery Tribunal.- The fee for filing of an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 shall be mutatis mutandis as provided for filing of an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.4. Fee for filing of an appeal to Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.- The fee for filing of an appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-19-2006
Reported in : AIR2007SC2; 2007(1)AWC45(SC); JT2006(9)SC349; 2006(10)SCALE488; 2006(2)LC1398(SC)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted. 2. M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. was a consumer of electricity from the appellant, a distributing company established in the place of the State Electricity Board. It allegedly fell into arrears to the tune of Rs. 64,23,695/- towards consumption charges of electrical energy including interest and other incidental charges. Because of the failure to pay the consumption charges, the power to the undertaking was disconnected on 6.4.1998. M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. had also borrowed amounts from the Haryana Financial Corporation and had mortgaged the undertaking to the Financial Corporation. In exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the undertaking was taken over by the Financial Corporation and advertised for sale. In the advertisement, the undertaking was offered for sale on 'as is where is basis'. The first respondent herein bid the undertaking and its bid was accepted. Possession was given by the Financia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-26-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC3229; [2006(111)FLR483]; [2007(1)JCR36(SC)]; JT2006(12)SC294; (2006)IIILLJ1037SC; 2006(9)SCALE597; 2007(2)SLJ170(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is a Government company. In carrying out its activities of manufacture of steel and other products it appointed several contractors. Respondent Nos. 4 to 618 herein are said to have been employees of the contractors. They raised a dispute before the State Government demanding their absorption as permanent employees. 3. By a notification dated 19.11.1985, the State Government referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the 1947' Act'):Are the contract workers employed in the nature of contract work listed as per Annexure working in the premises of Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd., Bhadravathi, justified in demanding absorption as regular permanent employees of Visveswaraya Iron & Steel Ltd. Bhadravathi?4. In the said proceedings, the workmen in their statements of claim filed on 26.02.1986 pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-24-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1297; 2006(3)CTC203; JT2006(3)SC472; (2006)IILLJ432SC; 2006(2)SCALE604; (2006)3SCC251; 2006(2)SLJ476(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These are two cross appeals between the parties. Canara Bank is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2004 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1642 of 2004. Shri Swapan Kumar Pani (hereinafter referred to as 'the first respondent') is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1642 of 2004 and first respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2004.2. The first respondent at all material time was working as Accountant, in Jajpur Road, Orissa Branch of Canara Bank, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). It is stated that in the said capacity he used to hold one set of keys of the locker of the bank. Another set of keys used to be in the custody of the Manager of the Bank. Admittedly on the ground that he had committed a misconduct; a departmental proceeding was proposed to be held in terms of Regulation 6 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline &Appeal;) Regulations, 1976 (Regulations) where for the following Articles of Charge were served on the first respondent:M/s U...
Tag this Judgment!