This case involved a False Claims Act qui tam action filed under seal by a relator against University of Washington Physicians and related medical groups, alleging schemes to defraud federal Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. After a lengthy government investigation, the parties settled all civil claims, which the court approved, and the complaint along with the dismissal documents were unsealed. The Seattle Times moved to intervene and unseal the remaining court file, which consisted primarily of the government's ex parte requests for extensions of time to intervene and related orders. The government opposed unsealing, arguing that some documents contained sensitive investigative information, but the UW Plans withdrew their objections after review. The court granted the motion to unseal, reasoning that the FCA authorizes the court to decide on disclosure of in camera filings, that the documents described only routine procedures without revealing confidential techniques or ongoing investigations, and that public and media interest outweighed any potential harm.
This case is a patent infringement action in which Vectra Fitness sued Icon Health & Fitness and Sears, alleging that Icon's fitness equipment products infringed Vectra's reissued U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,572. The court had previously ruled that certain Icon products literally infringed specific patent claims, leaving unresolved Icon's affirmative defenses of invalidity and estoppel as well as damages. The court denied Icon's motion for entry of a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) because the prior rulings did not fully dispose of the infringement claim or counterclaim, as validity and other issues remained. It granted Vectra's motion for summary judgment on the invalidity defenses, granted in part and denied in part Vectra's motion on equitable defenses, and denied Icon's motion for summary judgment on lost profits, applying standards for obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, laches, and patent damages law to the undisputed facts.
The case involved Washington state regulations adopted by the WUTC that restricted telecommunications carriers' use and disclosure of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), such as call details and private account information, requiring explicit customer opt-in consent for most marketing uses and opt-out for others. Verizon challenged the rules as violating the First Amendment's protections for commercial speech, along with preemption and Commerce Clause claims. The court granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, denied the WUTC's, and permanently enjoined enforcement of the regulations. The decision rested on the conclusion that the rules burdened protected commercial speech without meeting the requirements of the Central Hudson test, while declining to address the other claims.
The case concerned the Airport Communities Coalition's challenge to a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Port of Seattle for the Third Runway Project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which would fill wetlands with millions of cubic yards of material. Plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the permit was arbitrary and capricious due to inadequate analysis of alternatives, mitigation, water quality impacts, and related issues. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied plaintiff's motion, holding that the Corps' decision was not arbitrary or capricious because it was based on a rational connection to the facts, considered relevant factors without clear error, and complied with statutory requirements. Extra-record evidence submitted by the plaintiff was excluded as it did not meet the Ninth Circuit's narrow exceptions for such materials in APA review.
This case involved Precision Airmotive Corporation's claims against former Bendix employee Donald Rivera and his company Airflow Performance Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendants incorporated RSA-5DD1 fuel injection technology into their FM-series products. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court granted the motion in part and dismissed the claims with prejudice, holding that the limitations periods had expired because Precision had obtained and disassembled an Airflow FM-200 device by 1994 and thus knew or should have known of any misappropriation at that time under Washington's discovery rule. The court rejected Precision's attempt to invoke the discovery rule to delay accrual, finding no genuine issue of material fact and insufficient evidence that the facts could not have been discovered earlier through due diligence.
This case concerns allegations by Vectra Fitness that Icon Health & Fitness and Sears infringe U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,572 through various WeiderPro and related exercise machines that allow multiple stations to share a single weight stack via a cable-and-pulley system. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on noninfringement and infringement of claims 7, 25, and 26, denying Icon’s motions and granting Vectra’s cross-motions for literal infringement. It applied prior claim constructions, including the meaning of “stops” as mechanical structures that abut adjacent parts to tension cables, and determined that the accused products’ structures and operation satisfy the claim limitations, particularly for the WeiderPro 9950 and similar models. The decision rests on the absence of genuine factual disputes and the products’ mechanical equivalence to previously adjudicated infringing devices.
