• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 54-68 of 21,034 results

Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Company

Docket 17-1626, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (Feb. 14, 2017)
Appellant BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC.
Cross-Appellant ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Company

Docket 17-1555, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (Feb. 1, 2017)
Appellant BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC.
Cross-Appellant ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 57 Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stephen Smith and Jared ...

Document Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc., et al, 21-14161, No. 57 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023)
Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Hi-Tech, Smith, and Wheat returned to district court to request relief from the contempt judg- ment, arguing that continued enforcement of the judgment was no longer equitable after AMG.
USCA11 Case: 21-14161 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/29/2023 Page: 4 of 16 Opinion of the Court Hi-Tech sold dietary supplements, which it advertised as clinically proven to cause weight loss and other beneficial effects.
At the time, our precedent interpreted § 13(b) of the Act to al- low the FTC to seek monetary relief, such as restitution and dis- gorgement, directly in the district court without first completing administrative enforcement proceedings.
And they argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying the request for an accounting because allowing the collected funds to be deposited in the United States Treasury would be inequitable and constitute dis- gorgement, an improper penalty.
USCA11 Case: 21-14161 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/29/2023 Page: 14 of 16 Opinion of the Court substantial justice and the sanctity of final judgments.” Bainbridge v. Governor of Fla., No. 22-10525, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4986412, at *6 (Aug. 4, 2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 58 Judgment entered as to Appellants Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stephen Smith and Jared Wheat

Document Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc., et al, 21-14161, No. 58 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023)
Motion for Judgment
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
individually and as officers of the corporations,
individually and as officers of National Urological Group, Inc. and National Institute for Clincal Weight Loss, Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cv-03294-CAP
It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion is- sued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this Court.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 57 Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Stephen Smith and Jared ...

Document Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc., et al, 21-14161, No. 57 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023)
Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Hi-Tech, Smith, and Wheat returned to district court to request relief from the contempt judg- ment, arguing that continued enforcement of the judgment was no longer equitable after AMG.
USCA11 Case: 21-14161 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/29/2023 Page: 4 of 16 Opinion of the Court Hi-Tech sold dietary supplements, which it advertised as clinically proven to cause weight loss and other beneficial effects.
At the time, our precedent interpreted § 13(b) of the Act to al- low the FTC to seek monetary relief, such as restitution and dis- gorgement, directly in the district court without first completing administrative enforcement proceedings.
And they argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying the request for an accounting because allowing the collected funds to be deposited in the United States Treasury would be inequitable and constitute dis- gorgement, an improper penalty.
USCA11 Case: 21-14161 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 08/29/2023 Page: 14 of 16 Opinion of the Court substantial justice and the sanctity of final judgments.” Bainbridge v. Governor of Fla., No. 22-10525, --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4986412, at *6 (Aug. 4, 2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Travelpass Group LLC et al v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation et al

Docket 5:18-cv-00153, Texas Eastern District Court (Dec. 6, 2018)
District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, presiding, Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven
Anti-Trust

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corporation, et al

Docket 16-10363, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (Jan. 27, 2016)
Copyright (Appeals)
Case Type3820 Copyright
Tags3820 Copyright, 3820 Copyright
Plaintiff - Appellant EARTHCAM, INC., a Delaware corporation
Defendant - Appellee OXBLUE CORPORATION, a Georgia corporation
Defendant - Appellee CHANDLER MCCORMACK, Individually
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Rheem Manufacturing Company v. A.O. Smith Corporation

Docket 1:18-cv-04836, Georgia Northern District Court (Oct. 18, 2018)
Judge Leigh Martin May, presiding.
Trademark

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Slomin's, Inc.

Docket 2:18-cv-02106, New York Eastern District Court (April 9, 2018)
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, presiding, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke
Patent

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 81

Document Lowtech Studios, LLC v. Kooapps LLC, 1:23-cv-01437, No. 81 (W.D.Tex. Mar. 11, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

EarthCam, Inc. v. OxBlue Corporation, et al

Docket 15-11893, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (April 30, 2015)
Copyright (Appeals)

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 79

Document Lowtech Studios, LLC v. Kooapps LLC, 1:23-cv-01437, No. 79 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 26, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 77

Document Lowtech Studios, LLC v. Kooapps LLC, 1:23-cv-01437, No. 77 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 24, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 75

Document Lowtech Studios, LLC v. Kooapps LLC, 1:23-cv-01437, No. 75 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 24, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 71

Document Lowtech Studios, LLC v. Kooapps LLC, 1:23-cv-01437, No. 71 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 19, 2025)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... >>