Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Resources for Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

101-111 of 111 results

IN RE THE LIPARI BYPASS TRUST

Petitioner (Louis' daughter Mary) alleges a patent defect in the chain of title which would have put the new buyers on notice. Clearly, this matter needs to go to mediation with the new buyers' title insurer present. gmr

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2015

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

JOHN TURNER VS. UNIVERSAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION ET AL

In this case, defendant presents no evidence regarding the step, what the defect was, and whether the defect was patent or latent. In addition, Ex. D to the declaration of David Hart creates a triable issue of material fact regarding whether defendant retained control over the tower and/or whether American Bridge accepted defendant's work.

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2014

JOEL COHEN VS. TARGET CORPORATION

There is no evidence whether any negligent assembly would have been patent or latent, no evidence as to what might have made the missing foot cap fall off the table, and no evidence indicating that the missing foot cap was even installed in the first place. Accordingly, the mere passage of time between the completion of assembly and Plaintiff's incident is insufficient to negate the element of causation. Whiting-Turner's request for summary judgment is denied.

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2014

JOESIAH BELL VS. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC. ET AL

At the very least, there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defect was latent or patent. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2013

BELL CANYON VS MIKE TORABI

(iii) Defendants' request for summary judgment/adjudication on the ground that Plaintiff's Complaint is time-barred by the 4-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure §337.1, is denied on the ground that Defendants fail to set forth Material Facts or submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact as to whether the alleged deficiencies in Defendants' repairs on the Premises were "patent."

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2013

MAC MILLAN PARTNERS. ET AL. VS. ELLIOTT HOMES

DECISION First, the Court does not find that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale or the Third Amendment contain a material patent or latent ambiguity. Under the Third Amendment, Elliott agreed to either (1) remove the USAF Easement from the title of Lot 1; or (2) amend the USAF Easement to allow construction of buildings in the area affected by that easement.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2010

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LAURA RODRIGUEZ VS. WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING LLC

We know that if any alleged construction defect complained of by P is found to be "patent"; then there is a four-year statute of limitations after substantial completion; meaning that any patent defect claim by P against D here expired in September 2003. (Code Civ. Proc. § 337.1.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2010

JAMES JOLICOEUR VS. DOUGLAS EDWARDS

CCP §337.1 does not apply to the owner-occupied residence at issue. Second, there is nothing on the face of the X-complaint indicating that MP X-D's alleged defective construction was a "patent" defect as matter of law. Overrule. 10 days to answer. gmr

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2009

TAYLOR KOROBOW VS. SUSAN HARDIN ET AL

WAS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE OTHER DEFENDANTS - DID THE EVIDENCE REFLECT A PATENT OR LATENT DEFECT. =(302/PJM/VC)

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2008

MARY LISA FOX VS. TANE CHAN ET AL

THERE ARE TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE ALLEGED DEFECT WAS PATENT OR LATENT. THE PLACEMENT OF THE SWITCH WAS OBVIOUS; ITS OPERATION WAS NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 AND 2 ARE SUSTAINED, 3 THROUGH 8 ARE OVERRULED. =(302/PJM/AP)

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2007

RAGER VS OAKHILL WASHINGTON, LLC

TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE WHETHER LATENT OR PATENT DEFACT. (JH)

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2002

  « first    1 2 3 4 5

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.