This case concerns allegations by iPad purchasers that Apple and AT&T Mobility engaged in misleading marketing of 3G data plans, promoting the ability to flexibly switch to an unlimited $29.99 monthly plan that was discontinued weeks after sales launched, after the typical return period. Plaintiffs brought consolidated claims including fraud, contract, and misrepresentation theories against AT&T. The court granted AT&T's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing three claims without prejudice for insufficient pleading of reliance or special relationships and one claim with prejudice as preempted, while denying the motion to strike a co-plaintiff's claims because no waiver occurred and the consolidated complaint provided adequate notice.
The case involved plaintiff Neil Goldberg's claim that defendants Gale Anne Hurd and Pacific Western Productions, Inc. committed contributory copyright infringement by allegedly using elements from his 1979 script outline 'Long Live Music' and music album 'Energy' in the Terminator film franchise, specifically in later works like Terminator 3, Terminator 4, and the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Goldberg had sent his materials to New World Pictures around 1979, where Hurd may have worked, and asserted similarities in plot elements involving human-computer battles and musical soundtracks. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Goldberg failed to establish substantial similarity between the protectable elements of his works and the Terminator films under the extrinsic test for copyright infringement. Key reasoning included the lack of a proper musicological or literary comparison of protectable expressions versus ideas, the statute of limitations barring claims related to earlier films, and insufficient evidence to support the knowledge or inducement elements of contributory infringement even assuming access.
This case involves a trademark and contract dispute between Yes To beauty product companies and their former Israeli partner Ben Hur and his company 7M over manufacturing rights, trademark ownership, and related claims under federal and state law. The defendants moved to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing the case should proceed in Israel. The court denied the motion as to two plaintiffs and dismissed the third inactive plaintiff entity. It held that a mandatory forum selection clause in the parties' Business Termination Agreement, which designated San Francisco as the exclusive venue, was freely negotiated and enforceable, overriding any forum non conveniens analysis.
The case involves a nonprofit organization, CFIT, suing VeriSign over its contracts with ICANN to operate the .com and .net domain name registries, alleging violations of the Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 and related state laws. The court granted VeriSign's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, allowing amendment on issues of associational standing and claims regarding the .net market but denying amendment for seeking disgorgement or a jury trial. The reasoning centered on CFIT's failure to sufficiently allege specific facts supporting standing or a conspiracy in the .net bidding process, while noting that retrospective equitable relief and jury trials are unavailable in such antitrust actions seeking injunctive relief.
This case involves a dispute over unpaid invoices for over three million dollars in lettuce supplied under various agreements among Andrew Smith Company, Paul’s Pak, Church Brothers, Premium Fresh, and True Leaf. Paul’s Pak asserted counterclaims and crossclaims including breach of contract against Church Brothers and Premium Fresh. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment, awarding Paul’s Pak $496,022.85 on its breach claim against Church Brothers and $1,620,046.86 on its breach claim against Premium Fresh based on undisputed evidence of contracts, performance by Paul’s Pak, and nonpayment. The court found that a Waiver Agreement did not bar recovery under the Supply Agreement with Church Brothers when read in context, but denied summary adjudication on the Waiver’s enforceability and on various other claims. It also granted summary adjudication to Church Brothers and True Leaf on certain counts while denying it on others, and addressed related motions to strike declarations.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Fortinet alleges that Palo Alto Networks' PA-4000, PA-2000, and PA-500 Series firewalls infringe claims of U.S. Patents 7,376,125 and 7,177,311, which relate to methods for using flow caches to manage packet processing and forwarding in virtual router-based network devices. The parties sought construction of disputed claim terms such as 'upon successful allocation of a new entry of the packet flow cache for the new VR flow' and 'flow learning,' on which they ultimately agreed. The court construed the claims accordingly and ruled on the defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. It granted summary judgment that the accused products do not literally infringe the asserted claims but denied without prejudice the request for summary adjudication that prosecution history estoppel bars infringement claims under the doctrine of equivalents, noting that further analysis of the original claim language is needed. The decision rests on the claim language, specification, prosecution history, and comparison of the accused products to the construed claims.
