JUDICIAL:
BASF PLANT SCIENCE, LP, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, GRANIS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND NUSEED PTY LTD, Defendants. COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION, GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., AND NUSEED PTY LTD., Plaintiffs-Counterclaimants, No. 2:17-CV-503, 2019 WL 2017541 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2019)
This patent infringement and contract action is the latest in a series of intellectual property and other legal battles across the globe between the parties. This case is about United States patents on plants which formulate certain “long chain” fatty acids.
These matters come to the Court on two (2) motions to dismiss, one filed by Defendant-Counterclaimant Cargill, doc. 101, and one filed by Defendants-Counterclaimants Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (“CSIRO”); and a motion to compel, filed by CSIRO. On April 10, 2019, this Court heard arguments on these motions as well as arguments on the parties proposed constructions of several disputed terms. This Court denied both motions to dismiss and granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part from the bench.
RONNY DERRICK & ANGIE DERRICK, a married couple, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD NUTRITION COMPANY, a Nebraska Corp., dba A-C Nutrition, LP, a Texas limited partnership; JOHN DOES 1-5; & XYZ Corp. or Bus. Entities 1-5, Defendants., No. CIV 17-1245 RB/SMV, 2019 WL 2024960 (D.N.M. May 8, 2019)
Ronny and Angie Derrick (Plaintiffs), owners of a horse breeding program, bring suit against Standard Nutrition Company (Defendant), a manufacturer of animal feed. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant manufactured and sold them feed contaminated with a substance that caused injury and death to many of their horses. Both Plaintiffs and Defendant have moved for summary judgment on a variety of claims. Defendant has also moved to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ronald Box. Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Having considered the submissions of counsel and relevant law, the Court will grant in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment deny Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and grant in part Defendant’s motion to exclude.
GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI & DIANA WOLFE, individually & on behalf of themselves & all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., & CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. Defendants, No. 1:09-CV-0430 AWI-EPG, 2019 WL 2024954 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019)
In 2009, Plaintiffs, as purported class representatives, brought claims against Defendants DairyAmerica and California Dairies concerning the misreporting of milk prices. In September 2018, the parties notified the Court of their intent to settle.
Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the class action settlement, asserting the $40 million settlement fund—for the benefit of almost 26,000 dairy-farmer claimants—is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiffs also move for attorney fees, costs, and service awards. Defendants do not oppose.
The Court will approve the settlement, award 33% of the fund in attorney fees, allow reimbursement of approx. $825,000 in litigation costs, and grant service awards of $45,000 for each current named Plaintiff and $5,000 for the former named Plaintiffs.
Share: