Skip to main content
Jeffrey Carl Brown

Jeffrey Brown’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • Ductcap Products, Inc. v. Davco Enterprises, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Date:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    (not available)
  • Perrella v. Shorewood RV Ctr

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    The purchaser and the seller ultimately agreed that the seller would replace the motor home for breach of contract; express warranties; implied warranties of merchantability and fitness; and breach of duty to refund or replace under § 325F.665. The engine was not covered under the applicable warranties and after settlement with the purchaser that included a new motor home, the seller sought contribution from the engine manufacturer. The engine manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion, holding that contribution was a substantive and independent cause of action in Minnesota based on equitable principles to secure restitution to the seller who had paid more than its just share of liability. Further, because the seller had alleged that the engine manufacturer may have been liable for all or part of the purchaser's claims, contribution was available. The court reasoned that common liability arose when the seller and manufacturer became liable to the purchaser, regardless of the purchaser's failure to assert a claim against the manufacturer, and that the purchaser's failure to assert his claim was irrelevant to the seller's action seeking contribution.
  • Bellboy Corporation v. Richmond Limited

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Feb 07, 2006
    Outcome:
    Summary judgment in favor of defendant affirmed
    Description:
    In the first of two transactions between the parties, the importer ordered cartons of bull testes. In the second, the parties contracted for the sale of boneless beef. The importer breached the beef contract when a dispute arose over the cartons of bull testes. The importer argued that the meat producer had a duty to mitigate its damages when the importer refused to accept the beef. On appeal, the court noted that the deposition testimony of the importer's president was a self-serving opinion from a litigant. Thus, the importer failed to meet its burden to show how damages could have been mitigated. The district court concluded that the meat producer mitigated its damages by later reselling the beef in a commercially reasonable manner. Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the meat producer.
  • F&G Scrolling Mouse et al. v. Microsoft et al.

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Outcome:
    Defendants' motion to transfer venue granted
    Description:
    Plaintiff corporation and plaintiff inventors' filed their lawsuit in Illinois on the basis of plaintiff corporation's citizenship there. Holding that the citizenship of two of the defendant corporations, and the presence of the majority of the witnesses, established that Washington state was clearly more convenient, the court granted the 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) motion to transfer. The court found that venue and jurisdiction existed in both districts. The court found that on balance, the convenience of the parties was best served in the Washington. The court noted that plaintiff corporation was a mere shell, and that apart from the lawsuit, it conducted no business in Illinois. The court noted that plaintiff inventors were both aliens domiciled outside the United States, who chose Illinois based on travel convenience. By contrast, the court noted that two of the defendants were located in Washington, and concluded that that district was more convenient for the parties. The court also found that most of the witnesses, both party and non-party, were amenable to process in Washington, but not Illinois, including the witnesses with the presumably most relevant testimony.
  • Ductcap Products, Inc. v. J & S Frabrication, Inc. et al.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    Patent infringement case
  • ARS Technlogies, Inv. v. Pneumatic Fracturing, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    (not available)
  • Andrea Andrews et. al. v. Fantasy House, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    Race and gender discrimination case
  • CHS v. PetroNet LLC

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Outcome:
    Obtained dismissal of plainitff's trade secret misappropriation and misuse of confidential information claims on summary judgment
    Description:
    CHS alleged 5 counts of copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and misuse of confidential information.
  • CHS Inc. v. PetroNet LLC

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Date:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Outcome:
    Obtained partial summary judgment on 3 of 5 claims, including copyright, trade secret and confidential information claims. Case settled.
    Description:
    Represented defendant in copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation case.
  • Load Toad LLC v. Pneumat Systems, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Patent Infringement
    Date:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Outcome:
    Obtained voluntary dismissal of action after filing motion to dismiss
    Description:
    Load Toad sued client for patent infringement