This case involves a patent infringement dispute over U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131, which describes a communications protocol for exchanging information between a host processor and a terminal device. Following the Federal Circuit's vacation of a prior summary judgment order and its revised claim construction defining "terminal device," Defendant Dell moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, contending that its web servers do not meet the claim limitations because they exercise substantial control over the positioning of objects on client displays. The court denied the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, holding that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding infringement, as the Federal Circuit's construction permits some host processor involvement in object positioning and the prior vacated order created no binding factual findings.
This case involved Qualcomm suing Broadcom for infringing two patents related to video coding standards, while Broadcom defended by claiming the patents were unenforceable due to Qualcomm's waiver. The court had previously found waiver because Qualcomm failed to disclose the patents to the Joint Video Team standards-setting organization despite a duty to do so. After considering additional evidence, the court decided that the patents, along with all their continuations, divisions, and derivatives, are unenforceable. The reasoning was that Qualcomm's intentional concealment breached its disclosure obligations under standards-setting rules, as established in prior case law like Rambus, warranting a broad remedy to address the misconduct.
The case concerned Lucent's patent infringement claims against Microsoft regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,341,457 and RE 39,080, which cover audio coding methods and apparatus used in MP3 technology. A jury found the patents valid and infringed by Microsoft. The court separately ruled that Lucent had sole ownership and standing to sue, rejecting Microsoft's license defense based on the jury's factual finding that no post-April 1989 work was incorporated into the underlying patent. Microsoft moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on infringement, validity, damages, and related issues, which the court assessed under standards requiring substantial evidence to uphold a jury verdict and allowing the court to weigh evidence for a new trial if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence.
In this patent case, Lucent sued Dell, Gateway, and Microsoft for infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954, which covers methods for digital speech codecs that convert speech signals into electrical pulses, with the dispute consolidated in the Southern District of California and focused on claims 1, 2, and 6. The court granted Lucent summary adjudication on multiple issues, ruling that the patent claims were not invalid for anticipation, failure to name inventors under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), or lack of written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and that the laches defense was unavailable to Microsoft because Lucent sought only post-suit damages. The court also set the date of actual notice to Microsoft as May 9, 2003—the date of Lucent's answer and cross-complaint in response to Microsoft's declaratory judgment action—rather than an earlier date proposed by Lucent, while addressing related affirmative defenses raised by the defendants.
This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act to the City of San Diego for a multi-species conservation plan covering development activities. The permit addressed seven vernal pool species, including fairy shrimp and rare plants listed as endangered or threatened. Builder groups intervened to contest aspects of the permit's scope. The court held that the permit violated the ESA, requiring the Service to re-initiate consultation, because the plan's mitigation measures relying on avoidance where practicable and off-site transfers were inadequate to protect the species' habitat and recovery needs, the fairy shrimp could not reliably be transplanted, and the record did not support assured funding by the City. The decision emphasized that the Service failed to evaluate impacts at the time of permitting and overlooked data from its own recovery plan.
This case involves Qwest Communications seeking to collect on a multimillion-dollar judgment against New Media Telecommunications by alleging that its president Jonathan Weisz and his father conspired to fraudulently transfer over $1 million in company funds to shield them from creditors, including by wiping computer records. Qwest brought claims under California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) to set aside the transfers, impose a constructive trust, and related relief. Jonathan Weisz moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing he was neither the debtor nor a transferee under the UFTA and that no conspiracy claim could lie. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the UFTA permits recovery against a person for whose benefit the transfer was made and that a debtor who conspires with others to conceal assets can be liable on a conspiracy theory for the underlying tort.
