Judge Schultz denied Ecolab’s request for this information because, among other reasons, he determined that Ecolab’s operative Amended Complaint asserts no claim based on IBA’s use of Ecolab’s trade secrets to develop or manufacture IBA’s products.

Ecolab alleges: “To the extent the term of the License Agreement was not extended as an implied in fact contract through January 6, 2022,” IBA’s continued use of Ecolab’s trade secrets after the Agreement’s May 31, 2019 termination date to “make and have made” Ecolab-branded products violated the DTSA.

On review of a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive issue, a district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.

A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, 750 F. Supp.

Second, in the prayer for relief, the Amended Complaint explicitly seeks an injunction preventing IBA “from marketing, advertising, or selling any ASC teat dip product for an appropriate period of time.” Am. Compl.at 18, ¶ B (emphasis added).

In the first motion, Bazooka requests that this Court issue a request for international judicial assistance to the Quebec Superior Court to allow Bazooka to seek document production and deposition testimony in Canada from a corporate representative of Canimex Group concerning the design, development, and manufacture of Plaintiff Nuhn Industries, Ltd.’s (“Nuhn”) Lagoon Crawler’s hydraulic system and the inventorship of the Asserted Patents.

Lastly, Bazooka submits that the information sought from employee and former employee, Frank Niekoley and Martin Niekoley, respectively, is relevant to “(1) the design, development, and manufacture of Nuhn’s Lagoon Crawler, and its related prototypes, which is the commercial embodiment of Nuhn’s Asserted Patents, (2) the circumstances surrounding the testing and first use of Nuhn’s Lagoon Crawler and (3) other known amphibious vehicles that may be prior art to the Asserted Patents.” Id. Nuhn claims that good cause exists to deny Bazooka’s motions because: (1) Bazooka is attempting to obtain evidence from foreign nationals not bound to the Protective Order, ECF 118, entered in this case; (2) Bazooka seeks discovery of documents and testimony that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case; (3) Bazooka seeks discovery on topics such as discussions, communications, or conversations that are overboard; and (4) Bazooka’s request will inevitably delay discovery and the trial.

Furthermore, Nuhn claims good cause also exists because Bazooka is asking the Court to issue inaccurate statements to Canadian authorities about matters that have not yet been decided.

In reply, Bazooka continues to argue that the requested information is relevant to claims and counterclaims in the case and is proportional in this high-stakes litigation.

After a thorough review of the parties’ respective arguments and supporting legal authority, the Court grants Bazooka’s Motions for Issuance of Request for International Judicial Assistance.

In the first motion, Bazooka requests that this Court issue a request for international judicial assistance to the Quebec Superior Court to allow Bazooka to seek document production and deposition testimony in Canada from a corporate representative of Canimex Group concerning the design, development, and manufacture of Plaintiff Nuhn Industries, Ltd.’s (“Nuhn”) Lagoon Crawler’s hydraulic system and the inventorship of the Asserted Patents.

Lastly, Bazooka submits that the information sought from employee and former employee, Frank Niekoley and Martin Niekoley, respectively, is relevant to “(1) the design, development, and manufacture of Nuhn’s Lagoon Crawler, and its related prototypes, which is the commercial embodiment of Nuhn’s Asserted Patents, (2) the circumstances surrounding the testing and first use of Nuhn’s Lagoon Crawler and (3) other known amphibious vehicles that may be prior art to the Asserted Patents.” Id. Nuhn claims that good cause exists to deny Bazooka’s motions because: (1) Bazooka is attempting to obtain evidence from foreign nationals not bound to the Protective Order, ECF 118, entered in this case; (2) Bazooka seeks discovery of documents and testimony that is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case; (3) Bazooka seeks discovery on topics such as discussions, communications, or conversations that are overboard; and (4) Bazooka’s request will inevitably delay discovery and the trial.

Furthermore, Nuhn claims good cause also exists because Bazooka is asking the Court to issue inaccurate statements to Canadian authorities about matters that have not yet been decided.

In reply, Bazooka continues to argue that the requested information is relevant to claims and counterclaims in the case and is proportional in this high-stakes litigation.

After a thorough review of the parties’ respective arguments and supporting legal authority, the Court grants Bazooka’s Motions for Issuance of Request for International Judicial Assistance.

vs. Petitioner, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans,

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Casey Michael Dynan for further review is denied.

Dated: June 18, 2024

Specifically, FICO claims that the email was written before Sawyer had full knowledge of the facts surrounding Federal’s breach and use of Blaze, rendering it CASE 0:16-cv-01054-DTS Doc. 1448 Filed 05/21/24 Page 5 of 10 irrelevant to the hypothetical negotiation underlying the determination of a license’s fair market value.

Arguing that liability is no longer at issue and Zoltowski will not be testifying about actual damages this time around, FICO moves to exclude Dr. Kursh’s CASE 0:16-cv-01054-DTS Doc. 1448 Filed 05/21/24 Page 6 of 10 testimony as irrelevant under Rules 402 and 403.

Dr. Kursh’s report includes independent opinions regarding the customary sales practices in the software industry, information which is relevant and admissible in determining the fair market value of a Blaze license.

Not only is this not probative of the fair market value of a Blaze license, but the advisory jury and the Court already determined that FICO could not meet its burden to show this same causal connection.

FICO argues that it cannot present its case for actual damages without establishing the relevant background, which includes, at a minimum, evidence related to the license agreement, the parties’ prior relationship, and pre- termination communication between the parties.

In October 2022, Dynan served Thrivent with a complaint alleging unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, and negligent misrepresentation.

A complaint will survive a rule 12.02(e) motion “if it is possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader’s theory, to grant the relief demanded.” Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn. 2014).

The district court’s order noted that the “presentation occurred more than [13] years prior to the commencement of this action on October 21, 2022.” Thrivent operated its Money Revolution project from 2009 through 2014 and its Brightpeak Financial division from 2012 through 2019.

This “six-year period begins to run when the facts constituting fraud were discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered.” Toombs v. Daniels, 361 N.W.2d 801, 809 (Minn. 1985); see also Blegen v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 365 N.W.2d 356, 357 (Minn. App. 1985).

Dynan does not cite to any legal authority that would support a determination that he could not, through reasonable diligence, have discovered Thrivent’s alleged misrepresentations in 2012.

1 Motions to stay a case “are non-dispositive and thus within a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to determine.” Softrend, Inc. v. Wee Squeak, 07-CV-0411 (A) (M), 2008 WL 11363384, at *1, n.2 (W.D.N.Y. June 12, 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff Nuhn Industries Ltd. (“Nuhn”) is a Canadian corporation that markets an amphibious pumping vehicle for use in agitating manure lagoons called the “Lagoon Crawler.” Dkt. #1, ¶¶ 2-3.

Nuhn further alleges that defendant Atlas Ag (“Atlas”) has been infringing Nuhn’s patents since at least February 2022 by using Wolverine boats to provide manure lagoon agitation services to Atlas’s customers.

“The ability to stay cases is an exercise of a court’s inherent power to manage its own docket.” OV Loop v. Mastercard Inc., No. 23-CV-1773 (CS), 2023 WL 7905690, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Resolution of the Iowa matter will thus answer the threshold question of whether Nuhn’s patents are enforceable and, if so, whether Bazooka infringed them in producing the Wolverine boat.

Appellant argues that accepting the substitute brief “would not only correct the record but would also ensure that the Court’s deliberations are based on accurate and substantiated arguments.”

Respondent argues that “[a]s AI technology becomes available, this Court should not adopt a practice that gives a second chance to parties, whether they are represented or appearing pro se, who outsource brief writing to a digital tool without bothering to even check its citations.” Respondent argues that this court should strike appellant’s proposed substitute brief because it cites “Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 558 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997),” a case that does not exist and “cites a quote from Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) ... that does not appear anywhere within that case.”

Because appellant’s reply brief contains citations to fabricated cases, it is appropriate to grant appellant’s motion to strike the brief.

Because the filing of a reply brief is optional and appellant has not established good cause to accept the proposed substitute reply brief under the circumstances of this case, we deny appellant’s motion to accept the substitute brief and grant respondent’s motion to strike the proposed brief.

Respondent Thrivent Financial for Lutherans’ motion to strike appellant’s proposed substitute reply brief is denied.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs PHT Holding I LLC and Alice Curtis (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the certified Class in this Action, entered into a settlement (the “Settlement,” Doc. No. 259-2) with Defendant ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (“RLIC” or “Defendant”); WHEREAS, on July 31, 2023, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Order,” Doc. No. 266).

This Final Judgment shall apply to and bind the Releasing Parties as defined and set forth in Section 1.36 of the Settlement.

The institution, maintenance, and prosecution by any of the Releasing Parties, either directly, individually, representatively, derivatively, or in any other CASE 0:18-cv-02863-DWF-TNL Doc. 287 Filed 11/17/23 Page 3 of 4

The Released Parties may file the Stipulation and/or the Judgment in any action that may be brought against them to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, full faith and credit, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar, or reduction or any other theory of claim preclusion or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim.

Neither the fact nor substance of the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to the Settlement, may be deemed or used as a presumption, inference or admission of fault, liability, injury or wrongdoing in any civil, criminal, administrative, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction.

Due process requires that each defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The “fair warning” requirement will be met if defendants have “purposefully directed [their] activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472–73 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“In determining whether there is personal jurisdiction, the courts consider the defendant’s contacts with the forum in the aggregate, not individually; they look at the totality of the circumstances.” Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras Selectas, S.A., 51 F.3d 1383, 1388 (8th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

(i) “[C]ontinuing [contractual] relationships and obligations with citizens of another state[]” are relevant to the personal-jurisdiction analysis, Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 473, so Ecolab understandably points out that the Agreement contemplated that Webco— as a “third party manufacturer” for IBA—would “agree to the same manufacturing, non-compete and confidentiality provisions as agreed by IBA.” ECF No. 61-1 ¶ 2.5.

The bottom line is that Webco’s motion will be granted because the record evidence, construed in a light most favorable to Ecolab, does not show that Webco’s actions created a substantial connection with Minnesota and provided fair warning to Webco that it might be subject to jurisdiction here.

Thus, whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted turns on whether the claims of the ‘771 patent, as a matter of law, are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and, if so, whether they nonetheless supply an ...

Yanbin Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1043-44 (Fed. Cir. 2021).1 “Even a specification full of technical details about a physical invention may nonetheless conclude with claims that claim nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea ...

The clerk of the appellate courts rejected the filing because the addendum did not include a copy of the decision being appealed.

In light of the lapsed brief deadline, and to provide certainty to the parties, it is appropriate to rule on the motion without waiting for the response period to expire.

The short delay in the filing of appellant’s conforming brief will not significantly affect processing of the appeal or prejudice respondent Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.

To avoid any prejudice to respondent, we will extend the time for the filing of respondent’s brief as directed below.

The brief of respondent Thrivent Financial for Lutherans shall be served and filed by October 13, 2023.

None of those claims recite the additional features Plaintiff alleges comprise the first “important innovation.” (Dkt.

These alleged concepts suffer from the same deficiencies as those Plaintiff associates with the ’040 patent: (1) storing and using checking data is an abstract idea, not an inventive concept, and (2) none of these patents claim the ...

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Invalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions.

3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions is February 10, 2025.

Apple respectfully requests that the Court extend that deadline by 8 days to February 18, 2025.

Apple does not file this motion for the purpose of delay, but rather to allow it to adequately address the issues associated with its Invalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions, and in order that justice be done.

Counsel for Apple has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Avant Location Technologies concerning the relief sought by this motion, and this motion is unopposed.