Thomas Samuel Zilly

This case involved disabled and elderly Medicaid beneficiaries in Washington challenging the state's 2011 across-the-board reduction in in-home personal care service hours, implemented to address a budget crisis, and seeking a preliminary injunction to block the cuts. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. The core reasoning was that the state's CARE assessment system allocates service hours based on relative needs and budget limits rather than any minimum required to avoid institutionalization, and that the reductions did not violate the Medicaid Act or the ADA. The court also determined that the balance of equities and public interest favored the state, which faced significant additional costs if the injunction were granted.

healthcarecivil rights

This case concerns ongoing litigation over commercial uses of Jimi Hendrix's name, image, and likeness, with plaintiffs Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. and Authentic Hendrix, LLC asserting Lanham Act, Washington Consumer Protection Act, and common-law claims against defendants who distribute posters, apparel, and novelty items bearing Hendrix-related marks. Plaintiffs own copyrights in Hendrix songs and registered trademarks incorporating his name and image, but a prior ruling established that Hendrix's right of publicity did not survive his death under New York law and thus was not assigned to them. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on certain claims, and plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on defendants' state-law counterclaims. The court evaluated evidence of alleged false association from defendants' business names, domain names, logos, song titles, and lyrics, as well as plaintiffs' communications with defendants' customers, applying standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and addressing admissibility of declarations and hearsay objections.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit by the Department of Labor against Consolidated Gun Ranges and its co-owner, alleging retaliation against a former general manager who was fired after raising concerns about lead contamination and employee health at the facility. The employee had filed a timely whistleblower complaint under several federal environmental statutes, but not explicitly under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which protects workers complaining about workplace safety and health issues. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the section 11(c) claim was time-barred because no complaint was filed within the required thirty days. The court denied the motion, holding that the employee's complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a section 11(c) claim and that a DOL regulation allows such complaints to be deemed to include section 11(c) claims, with the agency entitled to Chevron deference in its interpretation of the statute.

labor & employmentenvironmentgunsbusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by Great Neck Saw Manufacturers against Star Asia for infringement of a utility patent and multiple design patents on folding knives, as well as related trade dress, false designation of origin, and unfair competition claims under federal and state law. The court addressed Star Asia's motions for partial summary judgment on these claims, applying the standard that summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On the utility patent, the court analyzed whether specific claim limitations using means-plus-function language were met by the accused product. Regarding trade dress, the court concluded that the claimed features were functional, barring protection, and that Great Neck's supplemental trademark registrations provided no presumption of validity or non-functionality to overcome this. The court also noted that a finding of functionality defeats the related Lanham Act and state-law claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a trademark dispute in which SafeWorks, LLC, the owner of multiple registered SPIDER marks for lifting, hoisting, and access equipment used since the 1950s, sued Teupen America, LLC, Extreme Access Solutions, Inc., and related entities for using the term "spiderlift" and the domain spiderlifts.com to market and rent track-mounted aerial lifts. After a bench trial, the court concluded that the defendants' use constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, that "spiderlift" was not generic in this context, and that the infringement was willful. The court awarded SafeWorks the defendants' net profits of $56,882 for the period of infringement and found the case exceptional, entitling SafeWorks to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The ruling rested on the validity and constructive notice of the long-registered marks, the defendants' continued use after warnings, and evidence that their conduct caused injury to SafeWorks' control over its brand.

business & regulatory

This case is a multi-state consumer class action brought by Qwest internet service customers against five Qwest corporate entities, alleging that the company improperly imposed $200 early termination fees (ETFs) on customers who canceled service before the end of any term commitment. The plaintiffs asserted claims for relief from unlawful penalties, unjust enrichment, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and other state consumer protection laws, and declaratory judgment, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the term commitments and ETFs and to recover damages. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), applying the plausibility standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and considered issues including the filed tariff doctrine for pre-2006 services, the need to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) for claims sounding in fraud, and whether the subscriber agreements created enforceable term commitments. The court dismissed certain claims, such as plaintiff Vernon's unjust enrichment count, while evaluating others under Washington and Minnesota law without reaching choice-of-law questions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Linton v. United States, William and Stacy Linton sued for a refund of over $500,000 in additional gift taxes assessed by the IRS for 2003 after the agency determined they had made larger taxable gifts of interests in WLFB Investments, LLC to irrevocable trusts for their four children than the amounts they had reported. The transfers involved contributions of real property, securities, and cash to the LLC on January 22, 2003, followed by gifts of LLC percentage interests to the trusts. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the Lintons' cross-motion, holding that the sequence of events and valuation of the gifted interests supported the IRS's higher tax assessment because later-generated documents were unreliable for determining the timing and that the gifts occurred after the LLC received the contributed assets.

taxes

The case concerned a patent dispute in which defendants sought attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after prevailing, based on findings that plaintiffs engaged in inequitable conduct before the PTO by withholding prior art and making misrepresentations, as well as using abusive litigation tactics. On remand from the Federal Circuit, which had vacated the inequitable conduct determination because it could not determine whether the undisclosed raincoat seam was cumulative of the disclosed Robers Patent, the district court addressed the scope of its authority under the mandate rule and compared the technical details of the two seams. The court concluded that the undisclosed seam was not cumulative of the Robers Patent, that the inequitable conduct finding was supported, and that the case remained exceptional, thereby supporting reinstatement of the attorney fees award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an apprentice plumber who sued the Seattle Area Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Journeyman and Apprentice Training Committee (JATC) after it removed him from the program, alleging interference with rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its state counterpart. The JATC moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not the plaintiff's employer. The court denied the JATC's motion and, on its own initiative, granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, ruling that the JATC qualified as an employer under the statutes because of a joint employment relationship. The court based this conclusion on Department of Labor regulations, citing the JATC's control over job assignments, wage progression, training requirements, and the ability to expel apprentices from the program, which effectively prevented them from working for participating contractors.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between ProteoTech, the patent licensor, and Rexall, its exclusive licensee under a 1998 agreement covering certain patents related to treatments for Alzheimer's disease, over whether Rexall could grant a sublicense to Unicity without ProteoTech's consent; this issue arose in the context of ProteoTech's patent infringement claims against Unicity after Rexall transferred rights to Unicity through corporate changes. The court denied the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment due to factual disputes but addressed the legal question of sublicensing authority. It held that an exclusive patent licensee may not grant a sublicense without the licensor's consent or express authorization in the license agreement. The reasoning drew on federal patent law principles distinguishing licenses from assignments, emphasizing that licensors retain control over the identity of those practicing the patented technology regardless of exclusivity, and noted that the agreement lacked any such authorization outside limited settlement contexts while being governed by Florida law.

business & regulatoryproperty

Bryan Bell filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy after his home mortgage entered foreclosure proceedings. He brought an adversary proceeding seeking to invalidate the non-judicial foreclosure sale conducted by the trustee, arguing that the property remained part of his bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the purchasers and loan servicer, and the district court affirmed. The court held that under Washington’s Deeds of Trust Act, delivery of the trustee’s deed on February 21, 2007, transferred all interest in the property before Bell’s February 22 filing, so the asset never entered the estate. The forbearance agreement permitted continuation of the sale upon a missed payment, and the oral postponements and timing of delivery complied with state law.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a dispute over licensing agreements for technology covered by two patents, where ProteoTech granted an exclusive license to Rexall, which then sublicensed to Unicity; ProteoTech sued Rexall for patent infringement, contributory trademark infringement, and indemnification. Rexall moved to dismiss all three claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the indemnification claim with prejudice because the contract clause unambiguously applied only to third-party claims and any such dispute was subject to arbitration, and limiting the patent infringement claim to United States Patent No. 6,264,994. The court denied the motion as to the remaining aspects of the claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a labor dispute between the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild and Hearst Communications (the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) concerning the Guild's 2006 unilateral termination of a 1998 New Media Agreement that addressed assignment of new media work to Guild and non-Guild employees, followed by a 2006 collective bargaining agreement that was silent on those issues but contained a broad grievance and arbitration procedure. The Guild sought to compel arbitration of a July grievance related to the termination, while the employer raised counterclaims alleging breach of the New Media Agreement and violations of federal labor law. The court granted the Guild's motion for summary judgment, compelled arbitration of the July Grievance under the CBA, dismissed the employer's first counterclaim and part of the second, and stayed the remaining counterclaim pending arbitration. The core reasoning was that the CBA's arbitration clause covered the grievance, the New Media Agreement contained no termination procedures or integration clause that would bar arbitration, and certain counterclaims were either untimely or not subject to the arbitration process.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns Lucky Break Wishbone Corporation's copyright infringement claims against Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Young & Rubicam over the design of a mass-produced plastic turkey wishbone. The court granted summary judgment to Lucky Break on originality and utility, determining that the design was independently created by a designer using a natural wishbone model and incorporated separable sculptural features that qualified for copyright protection. It partially granted and denied summary judgment on access, dismissing claims based on the production wishbone but allowing those based on the prototype to proceed due to factual disputes, and it dismissed all claims against Young & Rubicam. The core reasoning focused on copyright requirements for independent creation with minimal creativity and the separability of artistic elements from utilitarian aspects under federal law.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Delaplaine sued United Airlines under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for failure to accommodate his knee injury sustained on the job in 2001, which left him unable to perform his duties as a cabin serviceman and led to his layoff in 2003. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on whether plaintiff qualified as disabled, disputing whether the definition from the 2006 McClarty decision (adopting the ADA standard requiring substantial limitation of a major life activity) or the 2007 statutory amendment (RCW 49.60.040, made retroactive and requiring only a substantially limiting effect on the individual's ability to perform his job) applied. The court held that the new retroactive statutory definition controls because the legislation is remedial and does not violate separation of powers, and it granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff, ruling as a matter of law that he is disabled under the WLAD.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a defamation and false light invasion of privacy lawsuit brought by Tim Paterson against book publisher Little, Brown & Co., author Sir Harold Evans, and related defendants. Paterson alleged that a chapter in the 2004 book They Made America falsely portrayed him as having copied the look and feel of Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system when developing his own QDOS/86-DOS, which became the basis for MS-DOS. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. The ruling rested on the determination that Paterson qualified as a limited-purpose public figure in the controversy over the origins of DOS, requiring proof of actual malice that was not shown, along with analysis of the truth or protected nature of the challenged statements regarding the relationship between the operating systems.

free speechtorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Susan Beamish's claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan insured by Hartford (successor to CNA), after she stopped working due to chronic pain from breast cancer treatment, a knee injury, and complex regional pain syndrome. Hartford initially approved benefits but later terminated them, finding insufficient objective medical evidence as required by the plan and relying on reviews by its consulting physicians. Beamish sued after her internal appeal was denied. The court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment, holding that the plan granted Hartford discretion to interpret its terms and determine eligibility, and that Hartford's denial was not arbitrary and capricious because it reasonably relied on the consulting physicians' opinions, communicated with the claimant, and applied the plan's requirements for objective findings.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Docusign sued Sertifi alleging that Sertifi's electronic document signature system infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,289,460, which covers a system for secure online document management and electronic signatures, and simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction to halt Sertifi's operations. Sertifi responded by seeking to strike new evidence and arguments Docusign raised in its reply brief and by moving to declare the patent invalid. The court granted the motion to strike, finding that Docusign improperly introduced new facts, expert opinions, and claim construction arguments for the first time in reply, and denied the preliminary injunction because Docusign failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits after applying proper claim construction standards from the patent specification and prosecution history. The court also denied Sertifi's invalidity motion without prejudice as premature pending further claim construction proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action filed by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company against Meadow Valley defendants, seeking a determination that their policies provide no duty to defend or indemnify for claims arising from alleged construction defects in a 78-unit condominium project. The underlying state court action involved a stipulated $6.4 million judgment against the developer and related parties for repair costs and attorneys' fees. The district court denied St. Paul's motion for partial summary judgment on bad faith and CPA claims, denied the defendants' motion regarding the intended use of the buildings, and granted a motion to strike certain evidence as barred by statute. It deferred ruling on whether the St. Paul Fire Policy covers developer/construction liability or is limited to community association activities, and whether additional payments provisions require St. Paul to cover awarded attorneys' fees as costs taxed. The court interpreted policy language describing coverage for association activities and protected persons, alongside Washington insurance statutes and case law on agent authority and policy construction.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involves wrongful death and product liability claims brought by the estates of victims killed in a 2003 airplane crash in Oregon, allegedly caused by the failure of a vacuum pump and related components. The defendants, including manufacturers Parker Hannifin and Aero Accessories and maintainers Dodson Aviation, filed motions seeking application of foreign state laws (primarily Ohio or North Carolina) to the claims against them instead of Washington law. The court addressed these choice-of-law motions under Washington's most significant relationship test, considering factors such as the place of injury, the location of the conduct causing injury, the parties' domiciles, and the place where the relationship was centered. It concluded that Ohio law governs the product defect claims against Parker Hannifin because the design, manufacture, and warnings originated there, while applying different states' laws or Washington law to issues involving the other defendants based on their respective conduct locations.

torts & liabilityprocedure