• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
4 results

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Knowledge to Practice, In...

Docket 0:21-cv-01039, Minnesota District Court (Apr. 23, 2021)
Judge Susan Richard Nelson, presiding, Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung
Contract - Other
DivisionDMN
FlagsCV
Demand$75,000
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Case Type190 Contract - Other
Tags190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other, 190 Contract, Contract, Civil, Other
Plaintiff Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
Defendant Knowledge to Practice, Inc.
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 284 ORDER in Response to 283 Letter to District Judge

Document Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Knowledge to Practice, Inc., 0:21-cv-01039, No. 284 (D.Minn. Jan. 25, 2024)
Andrew B. Brantingham, Alan J. Iverson, and Nathan J. Ebnet, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Payton E. George, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20005 for Plaintiff.
Anthony R. Zeuli, Elisabeth S. Muirhead, Gregory C. Golla, Ariel O. Howe, and Peter A. Gergely, Merchant & Gould, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendant.
In the Court’s October 16, 2023 Order [Doc. No. 275] on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ motions to exclude expert witnesses, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to establish a briefing schedule on the award of costs and fees to Mayo, the prevailing party in the case.
On October 31, 2023, the Court entered an order [Doc. No. 278] that contained briefing deadlines and a hearing date, consistent with the parties’ stipulated agreement [Doc. No. 277].
The Court appreciates the parties’ good-faith efforts to resolve the matter of fees and costs and will remove the February 29, 2024 hearing date from the calendar.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 151 ORDER granting 89 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing

Document Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Knowledge to Practice, Inc., 0:21-cv-01039, No. 151 (D.Minn. Oct. 17, 2022)
Motion to SealGranted
Succinctly stated, this case involves a dispute over ownership of contractually- defined intellectual property interests in medical board review courses.
K2P asserts that, if the information were made public, it “could be used by K2P’s competitors to put K2P at a competitive disadvantage and would damage K2P’s business.” CASE 0:21-cv-01039-SRN-TNL Doc. 151 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 4 See, e.g., ECF No. 89 at 2.
This is because the right of access “is fundamental to ensuring the public’s confidence and trust in the judiciary.” In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Prods.
The decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Local Rule 5.6 provides guidance similar to the Eighth Circuit, by requiring the Court to balance the parties’ interests in maintaining the confidentiality of documents with the public’s right to access: [P]arties have been filing too much information under seal in civil cases ... .
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 51 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss/General, as follows: 1. The ...

Document Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. Knowledge to Practice, Inc., 0:21-cv-01039, No. 51 (D.Minn. Feb. 10, 2022)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)Partial
In 2013, she began developing a new business concept “that could provide accredited continuing medical education and board review courses for physicians entirely online, without the need to travel to an in-person lecture, and in combination with in-person lectures.” (Id.¶ 9.)
Based on findings from its audit, K2P made recommendations to Mayo relating to design, assessments, curriculum, organization, learning objectives, and teaching points.
The Cardiovascular Course “was very successful” and Mayo acknowledged that K2P had helped create “a state of the art online educational program which incorporates all the updated adult learning principles and will truly improve the competence of the learners.” (Id. ¶¶ 27–28.)
And Mayo agreed to “only use the K2P Intellectual Property or K2P Confidential Information for the purposes of advertising the Courses to potential end users and to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.” (Id.) Mayo further agreed to never “use nor share with 3rd parties, K2P Intellectual Property or K2P Confidential Information for its own purposes, including, but not limited to, product development, quality control, or research other than provided for in this Agreement.” (Id.) CASE 0:21-cv-01039-SRN-TNL Doc. 51 Filed 02/10/22 Page 7 of 15 5.
However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 expressly permits “a party to plead alternative or inconsistent claims or defenses.” Mono Advert., LLC v. Vera Bradley Designs, Inc., 285 F. Supp.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search