Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Decisions in Criminal, Contract, and Copyright Infringement Actions

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on March 31, 2010 4:32 PM

The First Circuit decided a copyright infringement action barred under the claim preclusion doctrine, a contract case, and a criminal matter involving a protracted delay in a defendant's revocation hearing following a drug offense. 

Airframe Sys. Inc. v. Raytheon Co., No. 09-1624, involved a district court's dismissal of plaintiff's copyright infringement action of a software source code under the doctrine of claim preclusion.  In affirming the dismissal, the court held that the plaintiff was or should have been well aware of the fact that the defendant named in the later suit filed in Massachusetts owned the business unit at issue when it filed the earlier suit in New York and should have amended it there. 

Adams v. Adams, No. 09-1443, involved a plaintiff-father's suit seeking enforcement of the terms of a promissory note executed by his son in connection with funds given by the father to help his son purchase a home in Texas.  In reversing the district court's denial of the son's motion to dismiss, the court held that the father has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the son's action related to the note constitute sufficient purposeful availment to allow for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts.

In US v. Pagan-Rodriguez, No. 08-1516, the court faced a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the revocation hearing claiming that the indefinite postponment of his final revocation hearing infringed his right to have the hearing held within a reasonable period of time.  In affirming the denial of the motion, the court held that although the district court unreasonably delayed the holding of a supervised release revocation hearing, the error was harmless because it caused no prejudice to the defendant. 

Related Resources:


Find a Lawyer

More Options