About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/seccontract0199 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations CONTRACTS 2D Generally N.D.Cal.2024. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. Owner of a patent for packaging insulation filed an infringement action against competitor. This court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff s offer to sell a prototype of the invention before the patent's filing date did not trigger the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102 to invalidate the patent. The court noted that it looked to the Restatement of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code when determining whether an offer rose to the level of a commercial offer for sale as required for the on-sale bar to invalidate a patent, and noted that plaintiff's email offer to sell the prototype to defendant was only a preparation for a sale, rather than a definite offer. Cellulose Material Solutions, LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc., 719 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1057. N.D.Ill.2024. Cit. generally in case quot. in sup. After direct purchaser of turkeys filed for bankruptcy, investor purchased direct purchaser's claims as a member of an antitrust class action against turkey processors that allegedly conspired to artificially suppress turkey production and increase turkey prices, opted out of the class, and filed a separate antitrust action against processors. This court denied processors' motion to dismiss on grounds of champerty, holding that, under federal common law, the assignment between direct purchaser and investor, which were both sophisticated entities, was not void as champertous, because the assigned cause of action arose from federal antitrust statutes. The court reasoned, in part, that the Restatement Second of Contracts, which was a common reference point for considering cases arising under federal common law, did not appear to prohibit the assignment. In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, 727 F.Supp.3d 756, 762. D.Mass.2024. Cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. Member of limited-liability company that distributed ultrasound algae remediation devices sued manufacturer of the devices, alleging that it breached a non- compete agreement after the relationship between the parties soured and manufacturer contacted member's customers to notify them that manufacturer did not have an exclusivity agreement with any party or vendor. This court granted in part manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, holding that member did not state a viable breach-of-contract claim, because the subsequent agreement between the parties, which did not contain a non-compete clause, controlled their relationship and member's allegations did not reference the controlling agreement. The court noted that, like Massachusetts, COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.