A continuing legal education company headed by Joseph Marino(inset, left), the legendary force behind a 65-year-old family-owned New York and New Jersey bar exam course, sued a former employee for alleged theft of “invaluable data” from his more recent CLE company’s business.
The Marino Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Inc. (‘Marino’ CLE’) accuses ex-employee Omar Issa(inset, right) of lifting Marino CLE trade secrets, breaching a fiduciary duty to his employer “by taking technology and…leaking confidential information and proprietary information” to his competing business while still working for Marino CLE
Days after Cisco sued TiVo in Silicon Valley federal court for a declaratory judgment over four patents, the maker of “God’s Machine” fired back with its own lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Cisco of infringing the very same TiVo patents in dispute.
One of the patents being fought over is Tivo’s “Multimedia Time Warping System.” If you feel like doing the time warp again with your DVR, this patent lets you record one TV program while you’re watching another.
Here is a list and description of the four TiVo patents being litigated with Cisco:
Facebook faces a lawsuit by new shareholders in the social networking company, filed less than a week after its IPO.
The shareholders allege that Facebook misled them by filing untrue statements in legal filings with the S.E.C., failed to prevent such statements from being misleading, and did not properly prepare the documents for prospective shareholders.
While another shareholder sued NASDAQ yesterday over the exchange’s acknowledged trading glitches, but this lawsuit specifically targets Facebook, board members, and investment banks.
A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday against NASDAQ by an individual investor accusing the stock exchange of botching his Facebook stock (FB) orders on the day of the IPO.
Plaintiff Phillip Goldberg alleges that he “placed purchase and cancellation orders for Facebook’s stock that NASDAQ failed to promptly and accurately execute” last Friday, May 18, 2012, causing he and scores of other investors to suffer losses on their trades (view the lawsuit below).
Knowing this, lawyers serve their clients well by making concise, memorable, and effective arguments.
Take Cal Tech’s attorneys, for example. On Friday, they told the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘ITC’) that “RIM’s mobile phones and tablets are not essential to the public’s health and welfare and are hardly comparable to nuclear devices or burn beds.”
A new class-action lawsuit accuses Apple of raining on iCloud users’ service, charging that the company’s promise that “migrating from MobileMe to iCould would be ‘effortless’ was one of many “misrepresentations” to consumers.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple duped MobileMe customers into believing that they would get a newer, improved service, but that “their forced migration to the iCloud platform” has resulted in them “not be[ing] able to access the features they were promised by Apple.”
A new patent infringement lawsuit accuses Apple, Electronic Arts, Target, Whole Foods, and other companies of violating a U.S. patent “for selectively rotating windows on a computer display.”
The lawsuit by Rotatable Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), alleges that Apple iPhones and iPads violate U.S. Patent No. 6,326,978 for letting users rotate their device displays using the patent’s method.
The 69-page decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit blocks enforcement of an Illinois criminal law that made it a felony to make audio recordings of Chicago police without receiving their consent.
Today Oracle asked U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to sidestep whatever verdict the jury ultimately reaches in the company’s Java code copyright trial against Google.
Oracle alleged that Google violated copyright law by refusing to license Sun’s Java software code, and allegedly incorporating copyright-protected source code into its Android OS for mobile devices. Oracle completed its acquisition of Sun in January 2010.
Oracle’s legal maneuver, known as judgment as a matter of law, argues that “no reasonable jury could find that Google did not infringe Oracle’s Java-related copyrights.” (Read the legal filing below)