Ultra-Precision Manufacturing, Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Sixth Circuit case law to hold that the defendant had not waived two affirmative defenses first raised in a second motion for summary judgment
• affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the plaintiffs state-law claim for unjust enrichment because the court concluded it was preempted by patent law
• finding unjust enrichment claim to be preempted where the plaintiff had alleged no confidential relationship with the defendant and had disclosed information without attempting to negotiate terms of payment from the defendant
• affirming dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim asserting that defendant received an unjust benefit from use of technical information that plaintiff gave defendant because “federal patent law preempted] [the] unjust enrichment claim, as pled”
• \The purpose of Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party notice of the affirmative defense and a chance to respond.\ (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• evaluating whether an unjust enrichment claim was preempted as pled

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).