Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): L.Ed.2d 604 (2007). 50 . See In re Rivastigmine Patent Litig., 246 F.R.D. 428, 432 (S.D.N.Y.2007). 51 . See DCL §§ 270-281. See also Drenis, 452 F.Supp.2d at 428. 52 . 452 F.Supp.2d at 428 (quoting Shelly v. Doe, 249 A.D.2d 756, 671 N.Y.S.2d 803, 805 (3rd Dep’t 1998)). 53 . See Club Protector, Inc. v. Peta, No. 01 Civ. 0337, 2002 WL 1020782, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2002). 54 . See BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 10 Civ. 8630, 2011 WL 3847376, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011). 55 . See Countered. § 38 ("Coleman is the inventor and true owner of United States Patent Number D616-635 as well as trademark rights related to the subject matter of the '635 patent”). 56 . See, e.g., Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 8 N.Y.3d 283, 292, 832 N.Y.S.2d 873, 864 N.E.2d 1272 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 57 . In re Chateaugay Corp., 156 B.R. 391, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that electronic records may be subject to a claim for conversion (B) holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information (C) recognizing that refinement of rule governing confidential court records was a necessary step in providing the public electronic access to court records (D) holding that where defendant retained possession of and deprived plaintiff access to business records a claim for conversion was properly stated (E) holding complaint was not based on a conversion claim but was a declaratory judgment action thus not governed by conversion statute of limitations
Output (English): holding complaint was not based on a conversion claim but was a declaratory judgment action thus not governed by conversion statute of limitations