William W. Schwarzer

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatorycivil rights

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.

business & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns an insurance company's suit for declaratory relief to determine whether it must defend or indemnify former officers and directors of a failed savings and loan association against claims now pursued by the FDIC. Fidelity issued a directors and officers liability policy to Homestate that contained an insured-versus-insured exclusion barring coverage for claims brought by the association itself, except for shareholder derivative actions. After Homestate failed, the FSLIC (later succeeded by the FDIC) took over the association's claims through receivership and a purchase-and-assumption agreement and continued the underlying actions. The court denied Fidelity's motion for summary judgment, holding that the exclusion was ambiguous as applied to the FDIC and that the insureds had a reasonable expectation of coverage under California insurance law principles that resolve ambiguities in favor of the insured.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved plaintiff Mike A. Nisperos, Jr., a general attorney employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who sued the agency after his termination, alleging a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 based on his drug addiction. Nisperos had disclosed his substance abuse issue, entered and completed an inpatient rehabilitation program, and remained drug-free, but was fired shortly after his arrest for cocaine-related offenses, with the INS citing that conduct as the reason. The court granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff, finding no material facts in dispute. It reasoned that Nisperos qualified as a handicapped individual under the Act who could perform the essential functions of his job, that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodation or follow its own policies regarding rehabilitation, and that the termination constituted discrimination on the basis of his handicap rather than a legitimate job-related justification.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Apple Computer suing Microsoft and HP for copyright infringement, claiming that the visual displays in Windows 2.03 and NewWave infringe Apple's copyrighted Macintosh graphic user interface. The court addressed whether the 1985 licensing Agreement between Apple and Microsoft covers discrete visual displays from Windows 1.0 for use in later products. The court held that the Agreement licenses the individual visual displays in Windows 1.0, allowing their use in Windows 2.03 and NewWave to that extent, as the plain language refers to licensing "these derivative works" identified as the visual displays rather than the interface as a whole. The reasoning is based on the contract's wording distinguishing "visual displays" from the overall "interface," and the negotiation history showing that Apple's proposed broader restrictions were not agreed upon.

business & regulatory

This case involved a motion by defendants Genentech and others for attorneys' fees in consolidated patent actions against Scripps Clinic and related plaintiffs concerning patents on certain medical processes. The district court granted the motion, declaring the cases exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding reasonable fees to defendants. The court relied on its prior summary judgment findings to conclude that plaintiffs engaged in inequitable conduct by making unsupported factual claims about purity levels to overcome patent examiner rejections, pursued a reissue application without proper support for broadened claims or evidence of mistake, and failed to disclose the best mode by withholding the identity of a key antibody that worked in the process. These actions collectively demonstrated bad faith and misconduct during patent prosecution and reissue proceedings, justifying the exceptional case designation and fee award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a class action filed in California state court in 1985 alleging that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan's practice of asserting liens on third-party recoveries violated the state's Unfair Practices Act. In 1989, after the plaintiff amended the complaint to add defendants and reference a federal HMO statute, the defendants removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction based on the HMO claim and ERISA preemption. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the action, if removable at all, should have been removed within thirty days of the original complaint. The court reasoned that neither the addition of new defendants nor a new federal claim restarts the removal clock unless the amendment fundamentally alters the suit into a new action, which did not occur here, and that removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal.

procedurefederal power

This case concerns a dispute over WAPA's 1982 sale of surplus Northwest hydroelectric energy directly to NCPA on behalf of several California cities, rather than to PG&E under the parties' existing 1967 Contract 2948A, as well as related claims involving capacity furnished by WAPA and funds held in escrow for the energy delivered. PG&E, NCPA, the Cities, and intervenor SMUD filed cross-motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment, along with counterclaims and cross-claims, raising issues of contractual interpretation, WAPA's statutory authority, and transmission obligations. The court found no material facts in dispute and resolved the motions by interpreting the contracts to define the parties' legal relations, including the validity of the direct sale and associated capacity rights, while rejecting certain defenses such as the filed rate doctrine as inapplicable.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Gaballah v. PG & E, a former employee at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant sued in state court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging termination for raising concerns about discrepancies in seismic safety drawings. PG&E removed the case to federal court, asserting that the claims were preempted by the Atomic Energy Act and Energy Reorganization Act, which provide an administrative remedy for whistleblower retaliation. The court denied PG&E's motion for reconsideration of its prior remand order, holding that federal law neither expressly nor impliedly preempts state-law claims in this context and that the federal scheme does not create a private right of action sufficient to support federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule and Merrell Dow. The court found no pervasive federal regulation displacing state remedies and no direct conflict rendering dual compliance impossible.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a motion to remand an action to state court after defendants removed it to federal district court. The court held that removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the original complaint alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, triggering the thirty-day period for removal, and the notice was filed more than thirty days after service of the amended complaint under federal time-computation rules that do not incorporate state-law mailing extensions. Although the plaintiff's remand motion was itself filed more than thirty days after removal, defendants waived any timeliness objection, and the court applied a presumption favoring remand over the late objection. The court further ruled that filing a jury demand did not waive the right to seek remand. The action was therefore remanded to the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.

procedurefederal power

Apple sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard alleging that the visual displays in Windows 2.03 infringed its copyrights on the Macintosh graphic user interface. Microsoft moved for summary judgment on the ground that the 1985 Settlement Agreement granted it a broad license to use Apple's visual displays in current and future software products. The court interpreted the agreement's language, preamble, and drafting history to conclude that Apple had licensed Microsoft to use the visual displays from Windows 1.0 and certain named applications in present and future products. It held that the license was not a complete defense to infringement claims concerning Windows 2.03 and therefore granted each party's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a California father who sued the Kingdom of Norway, the Norwegian Seaman’s Mission, a minister, and his wife after the children were removed from the United States to Norway in violation of a San Francisco Superior Court temporary custody order; the complaint alleged interference with parental rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and interference with the children’s right to parental consortium. The court considered multiple motions to dismiss, focusing on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), diversity jurisdiction problems arising from the children’s dual U.S.-Norwegian citizenship, the act-of-state doctrine, statutes of limitations, and failure to state a claim. It analyzed whether the tortious-activity exception to sovereign immunity applied to the alleged assistance by Norwegian officials and the Mission in providing travel funds and documents, while also addressing the discretionary-function exception and whether the Mission qualified as an instrumentality of Norway. The opinion concluded that certain claims against Norway and the Mission could not proceed because the conduct involved discretionary governmental functions protected by immunity, while other procedural and jurisdictional issues were resolved accordingly.

family lawfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Scripps Clinic and Genentech over a reissue patent (Re 32,011) related to the isolation of Factor VIII:C. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on patent validity defenses including anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), best mode, inequitable conduct, and the propriety of the reissue. It determined that it had jurisdiction only over the specific claims alleged to be infringed and emphasized the presumption of validity requiring clear and convincing evidence to invalidate. The court noted that summary judgment is appropriate where no material facts are disputed, as the issues are legal questions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a 1987 state-court action against China Airlines Ltd. and fictitious defendants that became potentially removable to federal court after the 1988 Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act amended 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) to disregard the citizenship of fictitious defendants. Defendant filed a notice of removal within thirty days of the Act’s effective date, prompting the question whether the statute’s passage triggered the removal clock under § 1446(b). The court remanded the action to the Superior Court of San Francisco, holding that the thirty-day period is triggered only by papers in the case and that removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal. It further reasoned that Congress’s purpose in the Act was to reduce timing uncertainties and late-stage disruptions, not to enlarge defendants’ removal rights, especially in light of the new one-year limit on removal.

procedure

In Ehrlich v. Oxford Insurance, the plaintiff sued an insurance company, its claims adjuster, and a regulatory agency in state court for violations of insurance laws, conspiracy, and emotional distress claims arising from the handling of a malpractice judgment. The defendants removed the case to federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction, but the plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted the remand, holding that removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because one defendant was a citizen of the forum state and the claims against the removing defendants were not separate and independent from non-removable claims. It also awarded attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff due to the lack of a colorable basis for removal.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is a declaratory relief action in which insurer American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company sought a ruling that its general liability policy did not require it to defend or indemnify employer Vista against employee Darlene Wilson's state-court claims for wrongful discharge, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, pay inequity, and wage discrimination. The court, applying California law, examined whether the claims involved an "occurrence" (defined as an accident resulting in unintended injury) under the bodily injury and property damage coverage, whether intentional conduct by the employer could qualify, and whether the contractual liability exclusion applied to the breach-of-covenant claim. It also considered potential coverage under the personal injury section for discrimination or defamation allegations. The court reasoned that policy language limits coverage to accidental events and that insurers may impose stricter limits than Insurance Code section 533, with doubt resolved in favor of the insured only where potential coverage exists.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability