Samsung lawsuit: Now T-Mobile lines up against Apple

SAN FRANSISCO: T-Mobile USA has become the latest mobile provider opposing Apple's bid to stop Samsung Electronics Co from selling some Galaxy products in the United States, according to a court filing.

The move by T-Mobile on Wednesday follows a similar position taken last week by Verizon Wireless. T-Mobile is the fourth largest US mobile service, while Verizon is the biggest.

Apple representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The legal battle between Apple and Samsung has been building since April, when Apple sued Samsung in a California federal court for infringing its intellectual property rights. 

Apple claims the South Korean firm's Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablets "slavishly" copies the iPhone and iPad. 


Read full News article at timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Related post:

• Second Colorado Listeria Lawsuit Filed Against Cantaloupe Producer
• Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits
• The progress of a lawsuit
• What is Trial and judgment in Lawsuit?

What is Appeal in Lawsuit?

After a final decision has been made, either party or both may appeal from the judgment if they believe there had been a procedural error made by the trial court. Even the prevailing party may appeal, if, for example, they wanted a larger award than was granted. The appellate court (which may be structured as an intermediate appellate court) and/or a higher court will then affirm the judgment, decline to hear it (which effectively affirms it), reverse, or vacate and remand, which involves sending the lawsuit back to the lower trial court to address an unresolved issue, or possibly for a whole new trial. Some lawsuits go up and down the appeals ladder repeatedly before finally being resolved.

Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues (the "invited error" problem) in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts. The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, if a party does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level, he or she generally cannot raise it upon appeal. Furthermore, appellate courts in such jurisdictions will not question the facts as found by a judge or jury in the trial court as long as there was some evidence in the record to support such findings, even if the appellate judge himself or herself would not have personally believed the underlying evidence if he or she had been present in the trial court when such evidence was entered into the record.

When the lawsuit has finally been resolved, or the allotted time to file an appeal has expired, the matter is res judicata. The plaintiff is precluded from bringing an action resulting from the same claim again. In addition, other parties who later attempt to re-litigate a matter already ruled upon from a previous lawsuit will be estopped from doing so.


Article Source: Wikipedia.org

You might like this:

1. The progress of a lawsuit
2. What is Trial and judgment in Lawsuit?
3. Rules of procedure and complications in lawsuits

FDA Defends Graphic Labels against Cigarette Companies’ Lawsuit

Responding to a lawsuit filed by five of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration filed Friday to block any delay to new regulations requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette packages.

The tobacco companies are suing the agency in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the new labels cross the line from factual warnings to unconstitutionally compelled speech. The companies want a preliminary injunction postponing the date the new rules go into effect.

In its opposition brief (PDF), the FDA is pushing back against the companies’ claim that they would suffer “economic harm” by spending several million dollars to produce the new labels in the meantime. The new regulations are set to go into effect in September 2012.

“Even taking plaintiffs’ untested allegations at face value, their alleged cost of preparing the revised warnings represents approximately one-tenth of one percent of their annual net sales, which is not sufficient to establish an entitlement to preliminary relief,” the agency argues in its brief.

Read full article at Original Article Source: Legaltimes.typepad.com

Lawsuit: Employment Denied To Returning Army Reservist

BALTIMORE -- A local Army reservist is suing both the city of Baltimore and its state's attorney's office, claiming he was not allowed his job back after returning from active duty.

Capt. Andrew Gross of Columbia claimed the city let him down, and now he wants back wages, according to 11 News reporter Lowell Melser.

Gross was not available to speak with 11 News on Tuesday because he is back on active duty at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. His attorney, Steven Silverman, said Gross has been in a see-saw battle with the city the last couple years concerning his former job as a city prosecutor.

The lawsuit claims Gross was denied his job back after returning from a six-month deployment, Melser reported.

Silverman told 11 News that Gross’ dream was to serve as a prosecutor for the state and serve his country as an Army officer, and that the city has ruined that dream.

“If Capt. Gross is willing to put his life on the line for his country, you would hope when he returns to civilian life, his country would be appreciative, or at least the city of Baltimore,” Silverman said.

Silverman said that in 2008, Gross graduated from law school, passed the Maryland bar on the first try and began working as a law clerk in the Baltimore state's attorney's office under then State’s Attorney Pat Jessamy.
"We hope that service men and women around the country become more aware of their rights, and employers become aware of the rights. If anybody should know the law, it's the states attorney's office and the City of Baltimore."
- Steven Silverman

In March 2009, Gross was hired as a prosecutor. At the same time, he enlisted in the Army Reserve, and in July 2009 he was called to active duty for a six-month deployment.

Gross was told his job would be waiting for him when he got back -- but it wasn't, according to Silverman.

“He went on active duty for six months, came back and was told there was no position available for him,” Silverman told Melser.

Silverman said Gross, after months of not getting any answers from the city, had no choice but to file a lawsuit against the city and state's attorney's office under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which states reserve military members have a right to reclaim employment after being absent due to service to the country.

The lawsuit asks for $30,000 in back wages, Melser reported. Silverman said the state's attorney's office has hired a large Philadelphia-based law firm for defense.

“And instead of doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, the city went and hired an out-of-state law firm to fight him,” Silverman said.

Silverman said he and Gross hope their lawsuit sends a message.

“We hope that service men and women around the country become more aware of their rights, and employers become aware of the rights,” he said. “If anybody should know the law, it's the states attorney's office and the city of Baltimore."

Melser said calls to the mayor’s office on Tuesday were not returned and that the state's attorney's office had no comment because of the pending legislation.

Article Source: wbaltv.com