-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-10-14
The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on copyright infringement, finding no substantial similarity of protectable elements, but denied summary judgment on false advertising due to disputed facts regarding the product's composition and FDA compliance.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-08-08
The court recommended granting default judgment against the defendant for copyright infringement, awarding statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-13
The court held that three prior accidents (Brown, Kanagawa Japan, and Banner) are substantially similar to the subject collision and admissible, but other collections of accidents lack sufficient similarity. NTSB Board reports are inadmissible, but factual reports are allowed.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-06-06
The court held that the amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading and sufficiently alleged direct copyright infringement, and that the motion to strike statutory damages was premature.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-18
The court held that a plaintiff is entitled to default judgment for copyright infringement when defendants fail to appear or respond, and that statutory damages and injunctive relief are appropriate.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-02-20
The court held that the plaintiff adequately pleaded copyright infringement and secondary infringement claims, but dismissed state law claims for unjust enrichment and defamation due to preemption or lack of specificity, while leaving the IIED claim against the primary creators f
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-21
The court held that the accused products do not infringe the plaintiff's design patents as a matter of law because the designs are sufficiently distinct when viewed as a whole by an ordinary observer.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-10
The court held that the arrangement of HTML source code, where variables were independent and their order did not affect functionality, lacked the minimal creativity required for copyright protection.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-11-19
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for entry of final default judgment against defendants for copyright infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-21
PainTEQ, LLC and Omnia Medical, LLC, former business partners in the surgical device industry, engaged in a patent, copyright, and trademark dispute following the termination of their distribution agreement and PainTEQ's development of a competing surgical cannula product. The co
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-02-09
The court held that Frazetta Properties, LLC owns a valid copyright in the artwork, and a jury could find that the defendants' use of the artwork in their book constitutes copyright infringement, but that Holly and Heidi Frazetta do not own the copyright.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-01-10
The court granted the defendant's motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's late disclosure of fact witnesses and supplemental expert report was not substantially justified or harmless.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-12-04
Charlotte Smith sued Carnival Corporation after slipping and falling on a wet deck surface aboard the cruise ship Vista in July 2022, sustaining severe injuries including a ruptured hamstring and head trauma. The court largely denied Smith's efforts to preclude various defense ev
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-09-14
The court held that evidence of other entities' non-compliance with an unproven industry standard is inadmissible, but denied exclusion of expert testimony on malingering and evidence of prior similar incidents.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-07-21
The court held that Trendtex Holding has standing to sue for copyright infringement, but Trendtex Fabrics does not. Narmada Textile is not an indispensable party.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-06-09
The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of the defendant's access to his work and that any similarities between the two artworks were not legally protectible expression.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-05-08
The court granted in part and denied in part both parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and testimony.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-04
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for default final judgment, finding sufficient allegations for patent and copyright infringement, and awarded injunctive relief and statutory damages.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-03-23
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the defendant for copyright infringement, but denied the request for a preliminary injunction due to improper service.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-02-24
The court recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part, finding sufficient allegations for copyright infringement and removal of copyright management information, and awarding statutory damages and injunctive relief.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-02-07
The court found the defendant liable for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, breach of contract, and tortious interference due to her unauthorized copying and distribution of examination questions.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-14
The court held that the expert's testimony was admissible because the methodology was sufficiently reliable and the potential flaws went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-08
The court granted in part and denied in part various motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of evidence concerning discovery disclosures, witness testimony, prior incidents, and internal company policies.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-04
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for copyright infringement.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-07-06
The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged copyright infringement, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-05-03
The court granted Plaintiff's motion for a final default judgment, awarding statutory damages, an injunction, and attorney's fees due to the defendant's willful copyright infringement.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-10-15
The court held that the defendant was liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and breach of contract, but not for direct infringement or civil conspiracy.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-04-30
The court held that evidence of prior incidents is admissible only if substantially similar, plaintiff's testimony about doctors' statements is admissible to show state of mind, and treating physicians can testify as experts if reports are provided. The court also held that evide
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-31
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of the wet substance on the restroom floor.
-
810 F. Supp. 2d 815·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-07-24
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a non-diverse party because the primary purpose appeared to be defeating diversity jurisdiction, and the plaintiff had been dilatory and would not be significantly prejudiced.
-
756 F. Supp. 2d 1352·
N.D. Fla.·
2010-11-23
The court held that factual compilations like practice and film study questions are copyrightable, but genuine issues of material fact remain regarding fair use. Claims under the DMCA and for violation of Florida's statute on name use were dismissed.
-
282 F. Supp. 2d 1316·
N.D. Fla.·
2003-09-17
Summary judgment is granted because the claims are time-barred and lack sufficient evidence, and sanctions are imposed on counsel for pursuing a frivolous case.
-
716 So. 2d 279·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1998-06-17
The court held that a party seeking discovery of information about other substantially similar products must first establish that similarity.
-
691 So. 2d 1097·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1997-03-19
Maurice Poole appeals his conviction for trafficking cocaine and aggravated battery on a police officer. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's denial of Poole's motion to disqualify the judge, denial of his motion to sup
-
932 F. Supp. 286·
S.D. Fla.·
1996-07-08
The court held that disputed issues of material fact remain regarding substantial similarity, precluding summary judgment in a copyright infringement case.
-
829 F. Supp. 1314·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-07-26
The court held that Arthur Rutenberg Corporation (ARH) could not enforce its copyright infringement claim because it did not own a valid copyright at the time of the alleged infringement due to an improper initial copyright registration under the 'work-made-for-hire' doctrine.
-
997 F.2d 496·
8th Cir.·
1993-07-14
The court held that the admission of evidence of other injuries, without a sufficient showing of substantial similarity, was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
-
991 F.2d 563·
9th Cir.·
1993-04-16
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim, but correctly granted summary judgment on the defamation, unfair competition, and breach of contract claims.
-
976 F.2d 824·
2d Cir.·
1992-10-01
The court held that the possessory credit 'Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man' was a false attribution likely to cause confusion and harm, but the 'based upon' credit was permissible given the material similarities between the story and the film.
-
973 F.2d 649·
8th Cir.·
1992-08-24
The court held that the district court did not err in interpreting the settlement stipulation broadly and in finding that Tol-O-Matic's modified clutch configuration was substantially the same as the prohibited configuration.
-
972 F.2d 939·
8th Cir.·
1992-08-14
The panel agreed the district court erred in granting summary judgment on accessibility, but disagreed on resolving the substantial similarity issue.
-
972 F.2d 1031·
9th Cir.·
1992-08-06
The court held that the district court erred in determining as a matter of law that the plaintiff's design was not copyrightable due to trivial differences from prior works; this is a question of fact for the jury.
-
945 F.2d 536·
2d Cir.·
1991-09-25
The court held that the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with U.S. Customs before seeking judicial intervention precluded a preliminary injunction.
-
927 F.2d 440·
9th Cir.·
1991-02-14
The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the similarities between the two masks were based on the common idea of a man-in-the-moon mask and not on protectable expression.