Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation, Case No. 14–1538 (U.S. 2017).
The supply of a single component for assembly into a multi-component product overseas does not constitute patent infringement in violation 35 U. S. C. §271(f )(1) of the U. S. Patent Act.
Global Quest, LLC v. Horizon Yachts, Inc., Case No. 15-10713 (11th Cir. 2017).
The Eleventh Circuit adopts Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 4 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1941), and holds that an “as is” clause does not bar a plaintiff from bringing a fraud claim.
Planned Parenthood Of Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Properties, Case No. SC15-1655 (Fla. 2017).
A trial court must apply “equity principles underlying injunctive relief” and abuses its discretion in requiring changed circumstances to modify or dissolve a temporary injunction, even when the injunction is based on violations of recorded real estate covenants and declarations.
Silver Beach Towers Property Owners Association, Inc. v.. Silver Beach Investments Of Destin, LC, Case No. 1D16-4555 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
The First District aligns itself with the Second District and in opposition to the Third District and holds that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(b)(1) (posting of a bond in the principal amount of the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest on judgments on the total amount) is not the only way to receive a stay of execution on a money judgment.
Desylvester v. The Bank Of New York Mellon, Case No. 2D15-5053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
The allegation that borrower was in default on a date certain “and all subsequent payments due thereafter” is sufficient to comply with the five-year statute of limitations even if the date certain is outside the five-year window; Collazo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2315 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 13, 2016), is distinguished.
Quick Cash, LLC v. Tradenet Enterprise Inc., No. 3D16-1640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
The following paragraph in a contract constitutes an exclusive and mandatory jurisdiction and venue clause:
This purchase order shall be deemed entered into and performed in the State of California and Buyer consents to the jurisdiction of the State of California for purposes of enforcement of the terms hereof. Buyer agrees to the above General Terms including but not limited to terms relating to interest on late payments, conditional terms, attorneys (sic) fees and jurisdiction for enforcement.
Federal National Mortgage v. Gallant, Case No. 4D16-3152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
A party is generally not permitted to intervene in a pending foreclosure action where a lis pendens has been filed, even if the party seeking intervention purchased the property. Moreover, Furthermore, intervention after final judgment is generally disfavored.