Tena Campbell

In this case, Fort Lane Village LLC sued its insurer Travelers after the company denied coverage for fire damage to a vacant commercial building, relying on a policy exclusion for losses from vandalism when the property had been vacant more than 60 days. The court granted Fort Lane's partial summary judgment motion, holding that the term vandalism in the policy did not include arson given the policy's language and distinctions in case law. The court granted Travelers summary judgment on the remaining claims, dismissing the negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment counts as a matter of law. The rulings rested on contract interpretation under Utah law and the absence of facts supporting the extra-contractual claims.

propertybusiness & regulatory

K-Tec sued Vita-Mix for infringing its patents on a high-performance blending jar. After a ten-day jury trial, the jury found K-Tec's patents valid, that Vita-Mix willfully infringed them, and awarded K-Tec over $11 million in damages including lost profits and royalties. Vita-Mix moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing non-infringement, invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness from prior art, and lack of willfulness, while K-Tec sought enhanced damages, interest, costs, and a permanent injunction. The court denied all of Vita-Mix's post-trial motions, finding the jury verdict supported by the evidence on each issue, and granted K-Tec's motions in part by awarding enhanced damages, amending the judgment for interest and costs, and entering a permanent injunction.

business & regulatory

The case concerned appeals from a bankruptcy court's rulings in an adversary proceeding brought by a Chapter 7 trustee against lender Winterfox, LLC, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosure requirements for two short-term loans totaling about $1.89 million secured by the debtor's Park City home. The bankruptcy court dismissed the TILA claims after finding the loans were primarily for business purposes and thus exempt from TILA, and it struck an amended complaint adding claims under the Utah Residential Mortgage Practices Act. On appeal, the district court affirmed the decision to strike the amended complaint as within the bankruptcy court's discretion but reversed the TILA dismissal, holding that Winterfox met the definition of a creditor under TILA because it originated the loans through a broker, and remanded for further proceedings on damages and fees while dismissing the lender's cross-appeal as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

QEP Field Services Company filed suit against the Ute Indian Tribe seeking to prevent the Tribe from restricting QEP's access to its Stagecoach Processing Plant and related expansion projects on tribal land. The parties had previously entered into a Surface Use and Access Concession Agreement that granted QEP access rights, required applications for new uses, and provided for arbitration of disputes along with a limited waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. After the Tribe obtained a preliminary injunction from the Tribal Court barring QEP's access, QEP asked the federal district court to enjoin the Tribe's actions. The court held that the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction to issue its injunction because the Agreement channeled disputes to arbitration and allowed direct recourse to federal court without exhaustion of tribal remedies. Finding that QEP satisfied the requirements for injunctive relief, the court granted QEP's motion and ordered the Tribe to restore access pending arbitration.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The case concerned cross-motions for summary judgment on the validity of K-TEC's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,979,117 and 7,218,842, which relate to blender container designs, after the court had already found that Vita-Mix infringed certain claims. K-TEC argued that no prior art anticipated or rendered obvious the disputed claims, while Vita-Mix contended the patents were invalid based on references including Miller, Ash, Grimes, Prothe, and the K-TEC Square Jar. The court granted K-TEC partial summary judgment, ruling that several references fell outside the relevant prior art scope, that Ash did not anticipate two of the claims, and that Vita-Mix lacked sufficient evidence on other references, but denied full summary judgment for either party because genuine issues of material fact remained on whether Miller anticipated the claims, whether Ash anticipated the third claim, and whether combinations of references rendered the claims obvious. Vita-Mix's motion for summary judgment of invalidity was denied in full.

business & regulatoryprocedure

NexMed Holdings sued Beta Technologies and its president for patent infringement, alleging that their Beta Device for treating herpes-related skin conditions with electrical current infringed NexMed's U.S. Patent No. 5,133,352, which covers a method of applying electrical current to affected areas. The court granted NexMed's summary judgment motions on the defendants' affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct, patent misuse, and challenges to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It denied most of the defendants' multiple summary judgment motions seeking to invalidate the patent on grounds such as prosecution history estoppel, public use, non-usefulness, and failure to join inventors, as well as motions on intervening rights and willful infringement. The court partially granted the defendants' motions on denial of injunctive relief and limitations on monetary relief, and on damages calculations using net cash flow, while denying their request to file a second amended answer.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a trade secret misappropriation dispute in which ClearOne Communications alleged that the WideBand defendants had stolen its Honeybee Code, a digital signal processing software used in teleconferencing products. After a jury verdict for ClearOne and entry of a permanent injunction barring use or sale of products containing the code, the court conducted contempt proceedings against several defendants and third parties for allegedly continuing to market and sell such products under new names like DialHD's AEC4 and HD4551. The court determined that ClearOne had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Lonny Bowers, Jun Yang, WideBand Solutions, and DialHD, Inc. violated the injunction by selling repackaged versions of the banned Simphonix product containing the Honeybee Code, but found insufficient evidence to hold Andrew Chiang, Versatile DSP, WideBand Georgia, and David Sullivan in contempt. The contemnors were ordered to pay ClearOne's damages and attorneys' fees and to take specified steps to purge the contempt or face coercive sanctions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Rosvall, the defendant was indicted on one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) after evidence was found during a traffic stop. The court considered the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, which argued that the initial stop by Officer Gray violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based solely on a broken taillight covered with red tape. The court granted the motion, finding that the government failed to meet its burden of showing specific, articulable facts that the taillight condition actually violated Utah law, making the stop unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment despite the officer's belief that any broken taillight was unlawful. The ruling did not address subsequent issues like the search or standing because the initial stop was invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a trade secret misappropriation dispute in which ClearOne Communications, Inc. obtained a jury verdict against competitor defendants, including the WideBand Defendants and Biamp Systems Corporation, for misappropriating the Honeybee Code, a set of audio digital signal processing algorithms and computer code used to enhance sound quality in teleconferencing equipment. ClearOne sought a permanent injunction as a remedy following the verdict. The court granted the injunction after reviewing the trial record, jury findings, and evidence, determining that the facts established misappropriation and that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent future harm. The decision rested on the jury's special verdict confirming the trade secret's validity and the defendants' improper use, along with considerations of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of other remedies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Beneficiaries of the Navajo Trust Fund filed a class action against the State of Utah as trustee, alleging mismanagement of fund monies derived from oil and gas royalties and seeking an equitable accounting plus replenishment of any losses from breaches of fiduciary duty. The dispute before the court involved cross-motions on Utah's affirmative defenses of laches and statute of limitations, which had been dismissed in a 1999 order. The court vacated that order and allowed the defenses to be pleaded in the answer but granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, dismissing both defenses with prejudice. The core reasoning was that, under applicable trust law, the statute of limitations does not begin to run absent a clear repudiation or indication of breach that would put beneficiaries on notice, and the same principles barred laches in this equitable proceeding involving a federally created trust.

propertyprocedure

This case is a third-party liability insurance coverage action in which plaintiffs Analee and Blair Rupp, as assignees of insured Granite Construction and excess insurer Westchester, sued primary insurers American Casualty and Continental Casualty for breach of fiduciary duties, including bad faith refusal to settle an underlying personal injury lawsuit arising from a 2003 construction-zone car accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that policy terms barred recovery because they had not consented to the settlement, the underlying action did not go to trial, Westchester had no assignable rights, and any liability was limited to the insured's out-of-pocket losses. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims do not fail under Utah law and that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the insurers breached their duties and whether the settlement was collusive.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Direct Mortgage Corporation seeking coverage under a fidelity bond issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company for losses incurred when it had to repurchase fraudulently obtained mortgages sold to third-party financial institutions due to an employee's falsification of loan documents. The court granted partial summary judgment to National Union, holding that the bond did not cover Direct Mortgage's claim. The reasoning centered on the bond's language requiring a direct loss from employee dishonesty, while excluding indirect or consequential losses, and the court determined that Direct Mortgage's settlement obligations constituted an indirect loss not covered by the policy.

business & regulatory

The case involved environmental organizations challenging Kane County's ordinance and actions, such as posting signs and removing federal closures, that opened portions of federal land managed by BLM and NPS to off-road vehicle use. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring the county's actions preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause and enjoining the county from opening the land to such use. The core reasoning was that the county had not established valid existing rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 in a court of law, so its actions created an obstacle to federal land management objectives without any proven legal basis to override federal authority.

environmentfederal powerproperty

The case involves a doctoral student in the University of Utah's Nuclear Engineering Program who sued the university under Title VI and two professors under §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, alleging that his dismissal from the program resulted from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin, along with violations of equal protection, due process, and conspiracy to violate civil rights. The disputes centered on the student's refusals to take qualifying exams as scheduled, whether those refusals counted as failures, and the university's handling of his subsequent complaints and dismissal. The court ruled on the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims except equal protection, granting it in part and denying it in part because the plaintiff identified factual disputes on some but not all claims, and it denied several related motions.

civil rightsprocedure

Voilé Manufacturing Corp. brought this action against Burnt Mountain Designs, LLC and its president seeking a declaratory judgment that its Switchback cable ski binding does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,877,759 (covering certain step-in telemark ski bindings) and that the patent is invalid. Burnt Mountain counterclaimed for infringement of the '759 patent and moved for a preliminary injunction barring sales of the Switchback. The court determined that Burnt Mountain showed a likelihood of success on the merits as to infringement of claims 23-25 but denied the injunction because it failed to establish irreparable harm, a required element, given evidence of licensing discussions and delay.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a patent and licensing dispute in which SRT, holder of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,308 claiming uses of 6-MBOA including for treating depression, alleged that Unigen and its affiliate Univera infringed Claim 16 by selling products containing the compound and that Unigen breached their license agreement by failing to pay royalties on those sales. SRT moved for a preliminary injunction to halt sales and recall the products. The court denied the motion, applying heightened scrutiny because the requested relief was disfavored; it found that SRT had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest did not clearly support granting the injunction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns plaintiffs' challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to the Bureau of Land Management's denial of their grazing permit applications for three allotments in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which had instead been granted to interveners after a series of preference transfers, conditional relinquishment offers, and permit approvals. The Department of the Interior's Administrative Law Judge upheld the BLM decisions following a formal adjudication. The court reviewed the ALJ's factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions for consistency with applicable regulations on grazing preferences and permits. It affirmed the ALJ's ruling in full, concluding that the BLM properly denied the plaintiffs' later applications due to existing permittees and that the interveners' permits were validly issued.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between Trace Minerals Research (TMR) and Mineral Resources International (MRI) over MRI's continued use of TMR's ConcenTrace trademark after the termination of a licensing agreement, as well as alleged breaches of related supply contracts regarding product sourcing and sales. TMR sought partial summary judgment declaring trademark infringement, an injunction against further use of the mark to divert web traffic or claim it as a source, and dismissal of MRI's contract counterclaims. The court granted partial summary judgment, holding that MRI's license to use the trademark ended upon TMR's termination of the agreement in March 2005, but denied the motion on the breach claims because genuine issues of material fact remained about the scope of permitted trademark use and whether TMR improperly sourced products from third parties. The request for injunctive relief was denied as moot based on MRI's subsequent remedial actions, and the meaning of certain contract terms like "noncompetitive" was found ambiguous.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is a civil securities fraud action brought by the SEC against Patrick M. Brody, the last remaining defendant in a five-year-old proceeding involving Merrill Scott & Associates. The SEC moved for summary judgment, alleging violations of federal anti-fraud provisions and broker registration requirements. The court granted the motion, finding that the facts were undisputed after striking Brody's late evidentiary submissions tied to his Fifth Amendment assertions and other objections. It entered a permanent injunction against future violations and ordered Brody to pay over $16.6 million in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, while deferring a ruling on civil penalties.

business & regulatory

This case involves Farm Bureau Life Insurance and Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance suing former agency manager Darrin Ivie, American National Insurance Company, and its regional director Kenneth Gallacher, alleging they conspired to recruit Farm Bureau agents to join American National despite the agents' contracts containing one-year non-solicitation clauses. Farm Bureau brought fourteen claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, business disparagement, defamation, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. On motions for partial summary judgment, the court denied without prejudice the motions regarding interpretation of the non-solicitation provision and Ivie's counterclaims due to ongoing settlement talks or timing with jury instructions. It denied the motions on misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty claims because Farm Bureau raised genuine disputes of material fact. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the business disparagement, trade libel, injurious falsehood, and defamation claims because Farm Bureau failed to allege damages and the statements could not support per se libel or slander claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure