Friskit, Inc. sued RealNetworks, Inc. and Listen.com alleging infringement of five patents covering systems for searching, streaming, and continuously playing media files over a network. The defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. After applying the Graham framework, the court found that all individual features of the claims existed in the prior art of media players, search engines, playlists, and streaming technology, and that combining them would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time. Friskit’s evidence of secondary considerations such as long-felt need and copying failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action.
The case involved pest control business owner Alan Merrifield and a trade association challenging California's Structural Pest Control Board's licensing requirements under the Business and Professions Code, which mandate a Branch 2 license for non-pesticide control of mice, rats, and pigeons but exempt other vertebrate pests. Plaintiffs argued that the scheme and its enforcement violated their rights under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding no constitutional violation in the licensing regime's application to the plaintiffs' activities. The reasoning centered on the state's authority to regulate structural pest control for public health and safety, the rational basis for distinguishing between different pests and methods, and the sufficiency of the experience and examination requirements even where much of the tested material concerned pesticides.
This case involves a securities fraud lawsuit brought by Shirley Zelman on behalf of purchasers of GOALs, which are equity-linked debt securities issued by UBS and tied to the performance of JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) stock. The plaintiff alleged that JDSU and several of its former directors made false statements about the company's revenue recognition, demand for products, and financial condition, causing the GOALs to trade at inflated prices. The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by JDSU and most individual defendants but granted Kalkhoven's motion in part with leave to amend. The core reasoning addressed the plaintiff's standing, whether the alleged misstatements were made in connection with the GOALs, the sufficiency of allegations regarding reliance and scienter, and whether Kalkhoven made any actionable statements after his retirement as CEO.
This case is a petition in limitation of liability brought by the owners of the sailing vessel XANADU against claimant Herbert Meyer, who sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while crewing the vessel. The court granted judgment as a matter of law to the winch manufacturer and ultimately to the vessel owners after a bench trial, finding that Meyer failed to prove any defect in the winch or negligence by the petitioners. The court also held that Meyer did not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act because his connection to the vessel was not substantial in duration or nature. Core reasoning included the absence of any evidence that the winch malfunctioned on the day of the accident, the discrediting of claimant's expert testimony due to improper assembly during testing, and the determination that petitioners exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.
In this bankruptcy case, the Chapter 11 trustee of Richmond Produce Company sought to avoid a $1.5 million transfer made in connection with a leveraged buyout of the company, claiming it was fraudulent under federal bankruptcy law and California law. The bankruptcy court determined that the transfer, which involved the company providing funds for a letter of credit to secure the buyer's note, did not provide reasonably equivalent value to the company and rendered it insolvent or undercapitalized. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment holding the Bank of California liable as an immediate transferee for $1.5 million plus prejudgment interest.
Former Radio Shack employees sued their employer in state court to recover accrued vacation benefits under California Labor Code section 227.3, claiming the company's VEBA trust was a device to evade state wage obligations. The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption as a basis for federal question jurisdiction and also invoking diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, ruling that the trust was not an ERISA-covered plan because it accumulated no funds and presented none of the risks of mismanagement that ERISA addresses. The court further held that the defendant failed to show the individual claims satisfied the jurisdictional amount required for diversity jurisdiction.