Ronald M. Whyte

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Palo Alto Networks accusing Fortinet of infringing claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,912,272, which covers a method for routing communications by receiving content for an unknown destination, assigning values based on that content, selecting a destination, and transferring the communication. After a claim construction hearing, the court defined disputed terms including construing "communication" to cover any type of message (not limited to calls) and "unknown destination" to mean an unspecified final destination intended by the sender. The court granted Fortinet's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement because the accused unified threat management products route or block communications that have known destinations specified by the sender, such as spam emails addressed to a particular recipient, and thus do not satisfy the "unknown destination" limitation present in all asserted claims. The decision rested on the undisputed facts about how the products operate relative to the construed claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2006 decision finding him unsuitable for parole after serving over 12 years of a 16-to-life sentence for second-degree murder committed during a gang-related confrontation. The district court granted the petition, concluding that the Board's denial lacked the required 'some evidence' of current dangerousness under California law. The court reasoned that the petitioner had expressed remorse and insight into his offense, maintained a positive prison record without recent discipline, and that minor variations in his account of events did not constitute reliable evidence supporting a finding of ongoing risk. The last reasoned state court opinion was deemed an unreasonable application of the governing standards, leading to an order directing the Board to set a parole date.

criminal lawprocedure

In Harris v. Garcia, the petitioner challenged his 1997 convictions on two counts of grand theft, one count of attempting to dissuade a witness, one count of access card forgery, and one count of escape from jail, along with his sentence, by filing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state court proceedings. The district court reviewed the claims and evidence from the trial involving allegations that the petitioner and his girlfriend defrauded elderly victims through false pretenses and other acts. The court granted the petition in part, vacating one grand theft conviction on the grounds that the evidence was legally insufficient, but denied relief on the remaining four convictions after finding no meritorious claims under applicable federal standards, including those related to confrontation rights and sentencing. As a result, the petitioner's continued custody was deemed lawful based on the upheld convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case concerned whether Jackson Laboratory's NSG mouse infringed CIEA's U.S. Patent No. 7,145,055, which claims a method of producing an immunodeficient mouse by backcrossing specific strains including a NOD/Shi mouse and a NOD/Shi-scid mouse, along with the resulting mouse. The court granted Jackson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. It first determined that Jackson's NSG mouse, made using a NOD/LtSz-scid mouse from a strain reproductively separated for over 20 generations, did not literally infringe under the court's claim construction. The court further held that the doctrine of equivalents was unavailable because the patent disclosed but did not claim use of the NOD/LtSz-scid mouse, dedicating that alternative to the public under the disclosure-dedication rule.

business & regulatory

KLA-Tencor sued former employee Ruixia Chen and InspecStar for trade secret misappropriation under California law, violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, breach of contract, and related claims arising from alleged retention and potential use of confidential company information after Chen's departure. After settlements with other defendants, the court considered KT's motion for partial summary judgment on four counts and InspecStar's request to stay proceedings. The court denied the summary judgment motion without prejudice, finding that KT had not adequately identified specific trade secrets or shown misappropriation, use, or resulting harm, and that factual disputes and Fifth Amendment assertions by defendants prevented conclusive resolution on the existing record; it also denied the stay. The decision rested on the lack of evidence of actual disclosure or competitive harm and the need for further specification of the claimed secrets.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case involves a dispute between Mussetter Distributing, an existing beer distributor under contract with Miller Brewing, and DBI Beverage, which MillerCoors (the successor to Miller after its joint venture with Coors) designated as the new distributor for the territory. After MillerCoors issued a notice of termination under California Business and Professions Code Section 25000.2, which provides for arbitration to determine fair market value of distribution rights, Mussetter sued challenging the statute's constitutionality and applicability, seeking summary judgment. The court denied Mussetter's motion, granted DBI's cross-motion, and denied MillerCoors' motion, holding that Section 25000.2 does not grant successor manufacturers a right to cancel existing distribution agreements, that DBI qualifies as a proper designee under the statute, and that the statute does not unconstitutionally impair Mussetter's contract because it imposes no cancellation right and the arbitration obligation does not constitute a substantial impairment under the Contracts Clause analysis. The decision followed the reasoning from a related case, Maita Distributors v. DBI, on identical issues. The court also granted in part MillerCoors' motion regarding the statute's applicability to contracts terminable for cause or at will.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement suit brought by Scientific Specialties Inc. against Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. alleging that the defendant's ABgene EasyStrip Snap Tubes products infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,722,553, which covers an integral assembly of spaced reagent tubes connected by tethers and independently tethered seal caps. The court conducted claim construction on seven disputed phrases from the patent's independent claims, relying primarily on the claim language, specification, and prosecution history to interpret terms such as 'integral assembly,' 'integrally connected,' and 'pivotally connected.' It then granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement after applying the constructions to the accused two-piece products. The opinion schedules further proceedings following the rulings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Beijing TRT, a U.S. subsidiary of China Beijing TRT Group, suing TRT USA and its officers for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin based on defendants' alleged unauthorized use of the Tong Ren Tang marks for traditional Chinese medicine products. The court addressed motions to strike portions of a defense declaration and for a preliminary injunction. It granted the motion to strike after finding the statements irrelevant or based on hearsay and speculation, and it granted the injunction in part, barring defendants from selling unauthorized or counterfeit products using the marks, representing exclusive distributorship, or claiming current affiliation with the plaintiff group. The core reasoning was that plaintiff showed a likelihood of success and irreparable harm regarding product quality control and consumer confusion for those activities, but not for enjoining use of the corporate name TRT USA due to plaintiff's prior awareness and delay, nor for other requested relief lacking sufficient evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Align Technology, Inc. suing its insurer, Federal Insurance Company, over two commercial liability policies for the 2004-2005 period. Align asserted claims for breach of the duty to defend, breach of the duty to reimburse a settlement, and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arising from Federal's refusal to defend Align in underlying state court litigation brought by OrthoClear that included allegations of unfair competition and related business practices. Federal moved to dismiss the bad faith claim, strike certain damages requests, and obtain summary judgment on all claims, while Align sought partial summary judgment on the duty to defend. The court denied Federal's motions and granted Align's partial summary judgment motion, finding that the policies' coverage for personal injury from libel or slander applied and that the intellectual property exclusion did not bar defense of the underlying claims. The court reasoned that the insurer's broad interpretation of the exclusion would improperly eliminate coverage for unfair business practices claims and that a genuine issue existed regarding whether the denial was unreasonable.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns the applicability of California Business and Professions Code § 25000.2, which establishes an expedited negotiation and arbitration process for determining fair market value of beer distribution rights when a successor manufacturer acquires brands and cancels an existing wholesaler's agreement. Plaintiff Maita Distributors challenged the statute's effect on its long-standing contracts with Miller and Coors (now MillerCoors), which permitted termination only for cause, after MillerCoors designated DBI Beverage as the new distributor. The court held that the statute does not grant successor manufacturers a right to cancel existing distribution agreements or override contractual termination clauses, but that it otherwise applies to the parties' situation, that DBI qualifies as a proper designee, and that Maita must participate in the statutory arbitration process for valuation. The rulings were based on the statute's text and legislative history, which focus exclusively on valuation mechanisms without addressing cancellation rights or transfers, as well as contract interpretation principles.

business & regulatory

The case involves the Santa Clara Valley Water District suing Olin Corporation to recover costs incurred in responding to perchlorate groundwater contamination originating from Olin's property in Morgan Hill, California, under CERCLA and state law claims, with total claimed costs exceeding $30 million including recharge operations and smaller categories like bottled water and sampling. Olin moved for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, challenging whether the costs qualified as recoverable response costs, were necessary and consistent with the national contingency plan, and met other CERCLA requirements. The court granted the motion in part, ruling that the District cannot recover legal fees from the current litigation and that punitive damages claims lack sufficient evidence of malice, but denied summary judgment on the core CERCLA cost recovery claims, state law claims, restitution, and declaratory relief, finding genuine issues of material fact. The reasoning applied standard summary judgment rules under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, precedents like Key Tronic on non-recoverable litigation costs, and the absence of clear and convincing evidence for punitive damages.

environmentprocedure

The case involves petitioner James W. Calloway's habeas corpus challenge to his 2001 conviction for failing to update his sex offender registration address, which resulted in a 25-years-to-life sentence under California's Three Strikes Law based on two prior convictions. Calloway argued that using a 1993 preliminary hearing transcript to establish great bodily injury for one strike violated his confrontation rights and jury trial rights, that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and that it breached his 1993 plea agreement. The court denied the petition, holding that the state appellate rulings were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under Ohio v. Roberts for confrontation issues, that prior conviction facts need not be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in this context, that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment given his criminal history, and that the plea agreement was not breached as it did not preclude future use of the conviction. A certificate of appealability was granted on all claims.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves the Santa Clara Valley Water District suing Olin Corporation to recover costs related to perchlorate groundwater contamination from Olin's property, including over $29 million in recharge operations to replenish the Llagas Subbasin, under CERCLA and a negligence claim. The court granted partial summary judgment to Olin, ruling that the recharge costs are not recoverable as they were part of the District's longstanding normal water supply operations rather than actions taken in response to the contamination or to remediate it. The court also granted judgment on the negligence claim regarding recovery of attorney's fees and litigation expenses under a 'tort of another' theory. The reasoning centered on CERCLA's definitions of 'remove' and 'remedy,' which require actions to address a release or threat of hazardous substances, and the absence of any increased recharge costs due to the perchlorate.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement dispute between competitors Aristocrat Technologies and International Game Technology over electronic gambling machines featuring a second bonus game. The patents at issue describe a method including an "indicating" step, which the court had construed as requiring an alert to the player during the first main game that a second game will appear after its completion. IGT moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, contending that its accused devices cannot satisfy both the timing requirements of the indicating step and the triggering step under the claim construction. The court denied the motion, holding that factual disputes exist regarding whether animations, text, or sounds in the machines literally meet the indicating step or do so under the doctrine of equivalents, and that similar disputes remain on the triggering step after clarification of the construction.

business & regulatoryprocedure