By on March 28, 2017

supreme-court

A Supreme Court ruling between two food companies may benefit the Detroit Three and its many domestic suppliers.

The case of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands focused on where plaintiffs in an intellectual property or patent infringement dispute can file a lawsuit. Current U.S. law dictates that the plaintiff may file a patent infringement suit in any court district where the defendant does business. This has saturated the Eastern District of Texas with countless patent and I.P. lawsuits. Plaintiffs prefer the region because rural Texas juries are more likely to rule against big businesses and the district is known for expediting proceedings.

According to a January study by the Stanford Technology Law Review, only about 15 percent of cases heard in the court actually involved a patent invented within the district or had an accused party that had an office in the area. However, the Supreme Court is expected to put the kibosh on the practice by forcing plaintiffs to try cases near the defendant’s headquarters — meaning domestic automakers could have the home field advantage in future legal proceedings.  (Read More…)

By on April 23, 2013

The American justice system has shown a large degree of overreach in the not so distant past, punishing or shaking down foreign companies for misdeeds performed on foreign soils by foreign perpetrators on foreign victims. This is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of jurisdiction and sovereignty. Enough is enough, says the U.S. Supreme Court and decided to hear Daimler’s appeal  against a decision by a San Francisco court that  workers or relatives of workers at an Argentina-based plant operated by Mercedes-Benz, a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler, can sue for alleged human rights abuses performed by Daimler in the 1970s in collusion with Argentina’s then military junta. Daimler had been on the receiving end of judicial overreach in the past. (Read More…)

By on June 29, 2010

The NRA, the Pope, Porsche and Piech, all eyes were on the Supreme Court for the last few days: Gun owners watched the Chicago case (right to arm bears upheld.) Accountants and CPAs monitored the treatment of their favorite boondoggle, a.k.a. Sarbanes-Oxley (upheld.) Rome said “oh my God” when they heard that a lawsuit that accuses the Vatican of conspiring with U.S. church officials to cover up sex abuse could proceed. Meanwhile, Germany’s attention, from Zuffenhausen to Wolfsburg, was fixated on Morrison v. National Australia Bank, No. 08-1191.  The Supreme Court seriously frustrated attemps by overseas investors who want to drag non-American companies into American courts. Champagne corks popped at Volkswagen and Porsche. The Guardian: “America’s supreme court has told prospective European claimants to take their claims back to Europe.” So what does that have to do with Porsche? (Read More…)

Recent Comments

  • Scoutdude: Do you live some place hot/with a lot of sun? That could explain the preference for white.
  • rudiger: I know the purists decry the notion, but there was great name-equity in the Viper, and diluting it into a...
  • threeer: Good friend of mine owns two Vipers. I’m sure he’ll continue to hold onto both. While she...
  • threeer: Or tries to charge you for it already being on the car to begin with. When I bought my 2004 Mitsubishi...
  • 28-Cars-Later: I think this one is pretty informative and factual, others may be hit and miss.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff