LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PLANNED PARENTHOOD et al v AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ACTIVISTS ET AL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 97, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: HUNTSMAN and CLEAN FLICKS OF COLORADO LLC, State: NY New York, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>97, Costs, Professor Hovenkamp, Motion, American, Aircraft, United States, Reconsideration, Support, Route, Airlines, Declaration, Threat, Review Magistrate Judge, Market, Opportunity Costs, Physician, Predation, Methodology, Ferrara, Witness, Sam, Magistrate Judge, Humphreys, Consistent, Antitrust Law, Fear, Supplement, Defense, States District Court, Order Granting, Bulletproof Vest, Clean Flicks, Doctors, Life, Viewing, Movies, Free Speech, First Time, Variable Cost Test, Third Party Edits , ContentID: 120243716

Case Documents
1 2002-10-28 Government Exhibit # 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131204
7 pages
PDF
2 2001-04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113969
1 pages
PDF
3 2001-04 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 112968
1 pages
PDF
4 2000-09-28 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COURT ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113008
11 pages
PDF
5 1999-01-26 TRIAL PLAINTIFFREBUTTALARGUMENT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110225
26 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 5 documents , 46 pages
Price: $ 39.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . Government Exhibit # 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
CLEAN FLICKS
VIEWING
MOVIES
THIRD PARTY EDITS
HUNTSMAN
THIRD PARTY
COURT
COLORADO
STUDIOS
TECHNOLOGIES
AUDIENCE
VIEWER
MEMBERS
ACT
ENTERTAINMENT
PICTURES
DECLARING
EDITING
INFRINGEMENT
BUSINESS
PATENT
DISTRICT
RELATING
LLC
LAWSUIT
DIRECTORS
PRIVATE HOME VIEWING
                                 THE UNlTED  STATES DISTRICT  COURT
                                  FOR THE  DISTRICT  OF COLORADO

ivjl  Action  No.  02-M-1662  (MJW)

OBERT  HUNTSMAN  and
LEAN  FLICKS  OF COLORADO,  L.LC.,

      Plaintiff(s),  .



IDE0  II,
*LENN DICKMAIN,            -
W.D. MANAGEMENT  CORJ'ORpiTION,
RILOGY  STTJDIOS, INC.,
LEAN-FLICKS,
l-Y CLEMLICKS,
AMlLY  SHIELD  TECHNOLOGIES,  LLC,
IEARPLAY,  INC.,
LEAN  CUT  CINBMAS,
AMILY  SAFE MEDIA,
DlTMXMOVIES,
/&l.lLY  FLIX,  U.S.A., UC.  and
LAY IT  CLEAN  VIDEO,

      Counterclaim-Defendants,



l-EVEN SODERBERGH,
OBERT  ALTMAN,
UCHAEL  APTED,
AYLOR  HACKFORD,
URTIS HANSON,
ORMAN  JEWISON,
M-N LANDIS,
KHAEL  MANN,
!lILLIP  NOYCE,
R4D  SILBERLING,
ETTY  THOMAS,
WIN  WINICLER,
lAI'XlN  SCORSESE,


       EVEN  SPIELBERG,
       3BERT  EDFORD,
       mEY  POLLACK,
       ETRO-GOLDWY%MAYER                 STUDIOS,  mC.,
SNIPPETS:
  • ME WAJXiZR ENTERTAINMENT CO. L.P.,
  • Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Sherman and Howard LLC., for their Second Amended omplaint
  • am Act, 15 USC.
  • This Court has exclusive jurisdiction by 28 U&C.
  • which gives the District Courts jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of
  • Congress relating to patents, copyrights and trademarks, and by 28 U.S.C. Q 2201.
  • Plaintiff Clean Flicks of Colorado, LLC is a Colorado corpoWion conducting business in
  • The Plaintiffs are in the business of providing third party edits of commercial
  • technologies to produce a viewing experience where a member of the
  • viewing public can view, in the privacy of their own horns, commercially distributed videos
  • Plaintiff Huntsman is an inventor with a pending patent application of a method
  • for allowing viewers to view content edited movies.
  • Each methodology may have separate legal implications, so a declaratory ruling on each
  • Plaintiff Clean Flicks utilizes a first generation widely prevalent methodology
  • involves targeting a new audience beyond the audience of the original work.
  • The edited version is made available for rent by members
  • distributed to the viewer together, allowing the viewer to choosi to watch either or both
  • Plaintiff Huntsman has filed a patent apphcation for a second generation editing
  • spielberg, Robea Redford, Syndey Pollack are direct&s of motion pictures who object to such
  • third party edits and believe that such edits infringe on their trademarks (`Pefendant
  • Defendants Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co.
  • nnouncing the lawsuit.
  • ad a reasonable apprehension that an infringement lawsuit would be filed shortly by Defendant
  • A judgment declaring that the practice of providing edited movies to the public
  • x private home viewing using the Huntsman methodology does not offend the U.S.

  • 2 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CHRIS-CRAFT INDUSTRIES
    CONSTANTINE
    YORK
    HEREBY CERTIFY
    PENALTY
    PERJURY
    COMPLAINT
    JUDGEMENT
    SEPARATE STIPULATION
    UNITED STATES
    EXPLANATION
    CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES
    PLACING
    AFOREMENTIONED DOCUMENTS
    ABOVE-NAMED PARTIES
    LLOYD CONSTANTINE
    PARTNERS
    ARPS
    SLATE
    MEAGHER
    FLOM LLP
    TIMES SQUARE
    
                                      CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
           I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that copies of the COMPLAINT, FINAL
    JUDGMENT, HOLD SEPARATE STIPULATION AND ORDER, and UNITED STATES'
    EXPLANATION OF CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES have been served upon The News
    Corporation Limited; FOX Television Holdings, Inc.; and Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., by placing
    copies of the aforementioned documents in the U.S. Mail, directed to each of the above-named
    parties at the addresses given below, this 11th day of April 2001.
    
    
    The News Corporation Limited and
    FOX Television Holdings, Inc.
    c/o Lloyd Constantine
    Constantine & Partners
    477 Madison Avenue
    New York, NY 10022
    
    
    Chris-Craft Industries, Inc.
    c/o Neal Stoll
    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
    Four Times Square
    New York, NY 10036
    
    
    
    
                                                                      /s/
                                          Carolyn L. Davis
                                          Senior Trial Attorney
                                          United States Department of Justice
                                          Antitrust Division
                                          1401 H Street, N.W.
                                          Suite 3000
                                          Washington, D.C.  20530
                                          (202) 514-5815
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that copies of the COMPLAINT, FINAL JUDGMENT, HOLD
  • The News Corporation Limited and FOX Television Holdings, Inc. c/o Lloyd Constantine
  • Constantine & Partners
  • Chris-Craft Industries, Inc. c/o Neal Stoll Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
  • Four Times Square New York,

  • 3 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    DISTRICT COURT
    KANSAS
    HEREBY CERTIFY
    OVERNIGHT MAIL
    MOTION
    LIMINE
    MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE
    MEMORANDUM
    SUPPORT THEREOF
    DEBRA PEARLSTEIN
    WEIL
    MANGES
    YORK
    ATTORNEY
    
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF KANSAS
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                     ))
                   Plaintiff,                     )        Case No. 99-1180-JTM
                                                  )
           v.                                     ))
    AMR CORPORATION, AMR                          )
    AIRLINES, INC. and AMR EAGLE                  )
    HOLDING CORPORATION,                          ))
                   Defendants.                    ))
    
                                     CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    
           I hereby certify that I caused to be served on Defendants' Counsel referenced below, by
    hand and via overnight mail on the 2d day of April, 2001, a copy of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
    to Exclude Evidence Related to a Meeting Competition Defense, Memorandum in support
    thereof, Appendix of Unreported Decisions, and this Certificate of Service.
    
    Debra Pearlstein
    Weil, Gotshal & Manges
    767 Fifth Avenue
    New York, NY 10153
    Tel: (212) 310-8686
    Fax: (212) 310-8007
    
    ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
    
    
                                          By      /"s"/
                                              Mark J. Niefer
                                              Attorney for Plaintiff
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF KANSAS
  • I hereby certify that I caused to be served on Defendants' Counsel referenced below, by hand
  • Debra Pearlstein Weil, Gotshal & Manges
  • New York, NY 10153 Tel: 310-8686 Fax: 310-8007
  • ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

  • 4 . REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION COURT ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PROFESSOR HOVENKAMP
    MOTION
    AMERICAN
    AIRCRAFT
    RECONSIDERATION
    UNITED STATES
    SUPPORT
    ROUTE
    AIRLINES
    DECLARATION
    COURT
    REVIEW MAGISTRATE JUDGE
    MARKET
    OPPORTUNITY COSTS
    PREDATION
    MAGISTRATE JUDGE
    HUMPHREYS
    CONSISTENT
    ANTITRUST LAW
    SUPPLEMENT
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    ORDER GRANTING
    FIRST TIME
    VARIABLE COST TEST
    OWNERSHIP COST
    OPPOSITION
    AVERAGE VARIABLE COST
    ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES
    
                            IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
    
                                               )
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  ))
                           Plaintiff,          ))          Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
                   v.                          ))          REDACTED VERSION
    AMR CORPORATION,                           )           FOR PUBLIC FILING
    AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and               )
    AMR EAGLE HOLDING                          )
    CORPORATION,                               ))
                           Defendants.         )
    _________________________________)
    
    
                         REPLY IN SUPPORT OF  PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
             FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 28, 2000,
                   ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVIEW
    
           Plaintiff United States submits this Reply in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of
    
    the Court's September 28, 2000 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Review Magistrate Judge
    
    Humphreys' Decision of June 13, 2000 ("September 28 Order").  The issue presented here is not
    
    whether American agrees with Professor Hovenkamp's analysis of relevant costs -- clearly it does
    
    not.  Instead, the issue is whether Professor Hovenkamp has consistently maintained that the
    
    ability of an airline to shift aircraft from one market to another means that aircraft costs are
    
    variable (or "avoidable") on a route where predation is alleged.  The answer, based on Professor
    
    Hovenkamp's writings since at least 1986, and confirmed by his declaration, is clearly "yes."
    
           American prevailed on its Motion to Review, and the United States no longer seeks the
    
    return of the document which led to filing of that motion; the United States merely seeks a
    
    correction to the public record.   Professor Hovenkamp's declaration establishes the existence of
    
    PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 1 -- REDACTED VERSION
    
    
    
    the error in the record and, other than claiming that the declaration is "ambiguous," American
    
    does not dispute the contents of the declaration.  American's refusal to accept the sworn
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 28, 2000,
  • ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVIEW
  • 2000 Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Review Magistrate Judge
  • Humphreys' Decision of June 13,
  • whether American agrees with Professor Hovenkamp's analysis of relevant costs -- clearly it
  • the issue is whether Professor Hovenkamp has consistently maintained that the
  • ability of an airline to shift aircraft from one market to another means that aircraft costs
  • variable on a route where predation is alleged.
  • Hovenkamp's writings since at least 1986, and confirmed by his declaration, is clearly "yes."
  • American prevailed on its Motion to Review, and the United States no longer seeks the
  • adding a footnote which suggested for the first time that the
  • Consistent with the standard applicable to motions for
  • American's Reply Memorandum in Support of American's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge
  • revised the next supplement to Antitrust Law, to suggest, for the first time, that the
  • Ç "It is only in his 1999 Supplement that adds a footnote
  • that for the first time asserts that the ownership cost or cost of aircraft capital
  • depreciation; obsolescence; and opportunity costs in the form of revenues
  • because it can readily be transferred to another market if not needed in the market in
  • Opposition at 5.
  • Airlines v. American Airlines
  • States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Continental Airlines v. American
  • and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test,
  • Plaintiff United States

  • 5 . TRIAL PLAINTIFFREBUTTALARGUMENT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    THREAT
    PHYSICIAN
    FERRARA
    WITNESS
    SAM
    FEAR
    DEFENSE
    UNITED STATES
    BULLETPROOF VEST
    DOCTORS
    LIFE
    FREE SPEECH
    TERRORISTS
    FATHER
    MOTHER
    ABORTION
    COUNTRY
    NONVIOLENT PROTEST
    WANTED POSTER
    PRECAUTIONS
    BULLETPROOF GLASS
    CONTEXT
    DAVID GUNN
    THREATENS
    BOMBING
    ABRAHAM ANDERSON
    RYDER TRUCK
    HANDGUN
    
    
    
          1               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
          2                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
    
          3    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE                )
               COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
          4                                             )
                                Plaintiffs,             ) CV 95-1671 JO
          5                                             )
                        vs.                             ) January 26, 1999
          6                                             )
               AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE               ) Portland, Oregon
          7    ACTIVISTS, et al.                        ))
          8                    Defendants.              )
    
          9
    
         10                    TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
    
         11               BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
    
         12                     PLAINTIFF'S REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
    
         13          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND A JURY
    
         14                              APPEARANCES
    
         15
    
         16
               FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
         17                          Davis Wright Tremaine
                                     1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
         18                          Portland, Or 97201
                                     503 778-5233
         19
                                     MARIA T. VULLO
         20                          MARTIN LONDON
                                     ELIZABETH MARINGER
         21                          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
                                     1285 Avenue of the Americas
         22                          New York, NY 10019-6064
                                     212 373-3346
         23
                                     ROGER K. EVANS
         24                          Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 16 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
  • FOR THE DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA
  • rebuttal argument to the defense argument.
  • 11 We didn't put him on the witness stand.
  • And so is his mother.
  • 20 from the Sam in this case.
  • And that's because Sam's father
  • 22 physician who treats women,
  • 25 services, and that includes abortion.
  • But Jim Newhall did serve his country in
  • when he returns from war, comes back to the United States,
  • 13 That it's a threat, and it's a real threat, and it's a
  • And if he wants to save his life and save
  • 16 precautions he must now take.
  • you can't hide a bulletproof vest.
  • protected by the right of free speech.
  • 16 cause fear in the mind of the listener.
  • 18 whole statement in the context.
  • they put David Gunn, Junior, Florida, the son of David
  • about terrorists who think that they are clever.
  • 11 every bit as powerful as the actual bombing.
  • bulletproof glass.
  • Who would criticize Abraham Anderson?
  • 18 Dr. Anderson's fear, after defendant Crane's wanted poster,
  • there may have been a nonviolent protest in front of his
  • 22 doctors away from providing abortion.
  • 20 to the defendant who threatens, to say, well, I didn't
  • somebody parked a Ryder truck out in front of an abortion
  • handgun is not for hunting.
  •    |