Case Summaries
[06/22] Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons who entered into copy rental agreements with defendant and who were overcharged for copies, trial court's judgment sustaining defendant's general demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as plaintiff's UCL cause of action accrued more than four years before he filed his action, and the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case.
[06/21] Target Corp. v. US
Court of International Trade's affirmance of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative circumvention determination that petroleum wax candles with 50% or more vegetable wax are later-developed merchandise covered by the anti-dumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China is affirmed as Commerce's reasonable interpretation of the relevant Congressional statute is entitled to Chevron deference and it's determination rested on substantial evidence.
[06/18] Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. US
In an appeal brought by three importers of foreign made goods from the Court of International Trade's denial of their request for judicial review of certain modifications to the U.S. Tariff schedule made by Presidential proclamation, the decision is affirmed where: 1) the Commission's recommendations under section 3005 are not "final" and consequently are not subject to judicial review under the APA; and 2) trial court correctly held that the Presidential proclamation at issue was not reviewable based on the claim that the Commission's recommendation was legally flawed.
[06/09] Walgreen Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
In plaintiff-Walgreen's challenge to a San Francisco ordinance banning the sale of tobacco products in certain retail establishments that contain a pharmacy, judgment of the trial court sustaining the city's demurrer without leave to amend is reversed in part as Walgreen's complaint adequately states a cause of action alleging an equal protection violation. Here, the challenged distinction among stores containing licensed pharmacies is not fairly related to the object of the prohibition on sales of tobacco products, as there is no rational basis to believe the supposed implied message conveyed by selling tobacco products at a Walgreens that has a licensed pharmacy is different in any meaningful way from the implied message conveyed by selling such products at a supermarket or big box store that contains a licensed pharmacy.
[06/07] In re: Sherwin-Williams, Co.
A defendant's petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that a district judge be recused from presiding over four cases against manufacturers of white lead carbonate pigments is denied as the petitioner has not established that a law review article co-written by the judge would make a reasonable, thoughtful, and well-informed observer question his impartiality.
[06/02] In re: Grossman's Inc.
In Chapter 11 proceedings, district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court's holding that the plaintiffs' tort claims, arising from exposure to asbestos contained in home improvement products sold by the debtor, were not "claims" under 11 U.S.C. section 101(5) is reversed where: 1) the Frenville accrual test is overruled as it imposes too narrow an interpretation of a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) a "claim" arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a "right to payment" under the Bankruptcy Code, and here, plaintiffs' claims arose sometime in 1977, the date the plaintiff alleged that debtor's product exposed her to asbestos; and 3) on remand, whether a particular claim has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court.
[06/02] Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action suit against Weyth Corporation and its subsidiary, alleging that defendants had sold a heartworm medication for dogs without disclosing safety concerns revealed in initial testing and in subsequent use, a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to sate a claim is affirmed where: 1) recovery generally is not available under the warranty of merchantability where the defect that made the product unfit caused no injury to the claimant and the threat is now gone and nothing now possessed by the claimant has been lessened in value; and 2) plaintiff has suffered no economic injuries under 93A section 4.
[06/02] Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US
Decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirming a Customs and Border Protection classification of Honda's oil bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is affirmed as the CIT properly interpreted and applied the Schedule in concluding that articles that are "parts of general use" under Chapter 73 cannot be classified as "parts and accessories" under Chapter 87.
[05/27] Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun
In a patent infringement suit involving Fujifilm's patents directed to single-use cameras, or lens fitted film packages (LFFP), arising from defendant's conduct of purchasing used LFFPs and selling them as new after refurbishing them, judgment of the district court is affirmed including denial of defendants' post trial motion for JMOL based on noninfringement of a particular brand of LFFPs and inapplicability of a first sale's location, plus a ruling holding defendants in contempt of a preliminary order enjoining importation of infringing LFFPs.
[05/26] Adolph v. Coastal Auto Sales, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against an automobile dealer for failing to transfer ownership of a trade-in vehicle to itself, causing her to be charged with parking fines, towing and impound fees, and a tax garnishment related to the trade-in, trial court's denial of defendant's petition to compel arbitration is affirmed as the trial court's factual finding that defendant waived its right to arbitrate is supported by substantial evidence.
[05/20] Pella Corp. v. Saltzman
In plaintiffs' suit against a window manufacturer, alleging that defendant committed consumer fraud by not publicly declaring a design defect that caused wood casing the windows to rot, defendant's Rule 23(f) appeal is granted and the district court's certification of two classes of plaintiffs affirmed as, although consumer fraud class actions present challenges that a district court must carefully consider, certification is appropriate under the circumstance of this case.
[05/19] R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC
In a copyright and trade secret infringement suit brought by a provider of credit union software against the developer of a competing credit union software, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its broad discretion in refusing to compel additional discovery and plaintiff can point to no errors of fact or law in the court's denial of its employees access to defendant's software; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the use of an expert's report because the report failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(B); 3) plaintiff was not entitled to take the deposition of defendant's expert witness because defendant designated him as a non-testifying expert; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a sanction on defendant because plaintiff was not left without a remedy for any harm caused by the third party's spoliation; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits on the copyright infringement claims because plaintiff has not produced any direct evidence of copying and indirect evidence of copying was not sufficient to create a fact question as to whether copying occurred; and 6) district court correctly held that plaintiff's end user product was not a trade secret because plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy.
[05/17] Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore
In plaintiff's action for defamation and related claims against an attorney and a law firm, arising from an advertisement placed by the defendants addressing owners of wood decks that they may have a claim against plaintiff and other manufacturers of certain galvanized screws, dismissal of the entire complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as plaintiff's expansive construction of the commercial speech exemption is rejected, and thus, the complaint was not exempted from the anti-SLAPP statute by section 425.1(c)(1). The court also establishes that the burden of proof as to the applicability of the "commercial speech" exemption of the anti-SLAPP statute falls on the party seeking the benefit of it.
[05/17] Dorbest Ltd. v. US
In an antidumping duty case relating to wooden bedroom furniture imported from China, Court of International Trade's (CIT) affirmance of the Department of Commerce's calculation of the labor rate is vacated and remanded where: 1) 19 C.F.R. section 351.408(c)(3) is invalidated and the portion of the CIT's judgment affirming the Commerce's use of the regulation is vacated and remanded with instructions to require Commerce to recalculate the normal value using a method wholly in compliance with 19 U.S.C. section 1677b(c)(4); and 2) CIT's decision that required Commerce either to justify using all seven Indian surrogate companies for calculating non-production factors or to eliminate from the calculations the four smallest surrogate companies are vacated and remanded with instructions to recalculate the non-production factors using all seven surrogate companies.
[05/17] Orion IP, LLC. v. Hyundai Motor Am.
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit against Hyundai and other automakers related to a method for assisting a salesperson in selecting appropriate parts corresponding to a customer's particularized need using a computerized system, district court's ruling of no unenforceability for inequitable conduct and denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial are affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment that claims 1,7,and 8 are valid is reversed as these claims are anticipated as a matter of law, and no new trial is warranted; and 2) district court's ruling that the '627 patent is not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed.
[05/13] Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful death action against cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris arising from the death of her husband from lung cancer, Court of Appeal's affirmance of trial court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as plaintiff's wrongful death action involves the same primary right and breach as her former loss of consortium action, and thus, the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff's wrongful death action.
[05/13] Prime Gas, Inc. v. City of Sacramento
In a plaintiff's petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging a city ordinance that requires local tobacco retailers to be licensed by the city, trial court's judgment finding no preemption is affirmed as a local ordinance that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors through the sanction of suspending or revoking the retailer's local license to sell tobacco is not preempted by state law which also prohibits tobacco sales to minors.
[05/10] Terry v. Tyson Farms, Inc.
In a poultry farmer's suit against Tyson Farms under the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (AFPA) alleging unlawful interference and discrimination based on his membership in the grower's association, as well as claims under the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and an award of attorney's fees to Tyson is affirmed where: 1) district court properly determined that plaintiff's complaint does not allege that Tyson's actions had an anticompetitive effect, and as such, it was not an error to grant Tyson's motion to dismiss the PSA claim; 2) plaintiff has failed to allege that Tyson's unlawful actions stem from his involvement with an AFPA-protected "association of producers"; and 3) plaintiff has forfeited his argument with respect to the district court's award of attorney fees to Tyson.
[05/06] Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
In a declaratory judgment action involving whether the sale by plaintiff of marquee license plates bearing Volkswagen badges purchased from Volkswagen constitutes trademark infringement, or whether the sale of the plates is protected by the "first sale" doctrine, summary judgment for Volkswagen is affirmed where the "first sale" doctrine did not provide a defense because plaintiff's marquee license plates create a likelihood of confusion as to their origin.
[04/29] Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against Intel Corporation alleging that it misappropriated certain trade secrets used by plaintiff in its software products, judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) Intel cannot be liable if it never possessed or had access to the source code but only had executable, machine-readable code compiled by its supplier from source code; and 2) plaintiff failed to plead a viable claim not based upon a misappropriation of trade secrets.
Back to Main
