WASHINGTON, D.C. - A motion by Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Samsung, collectively) to stay enforcement of a final, $548 million judgment in California patent litigation with Apple Inc. was rejected Oct. 13 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., No. 15-2088, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A man accused of "scraping" and copying the listings from the website of Craigslist Inc. had default judgment entered against him on Oct. 11 by a California federal judge, in light of the defendant's failure to respond to the claims against him by the online classified advertisement site operator (Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., et al., No. 3:12-cv-03816, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Oct. 9 certified a class of disability benefits applicants suing the acting commissioner of Social Security over the administration's decision to deny them benefits based on examinations performed by a doctor who was later disqualified (Kevin Hart, et al. v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 15-623, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138673).
FRESNO, Calif. - A California federal judge on Oct. 8 granted the motions for certification of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class and conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action in the wage-and-hour complaint filed against Cascade Water Services Inc., but denied preliminary approval of the $150,000 settlement due to concerns about the fairness of it (Nicholas Millan, et al. v. Cascade Water Services, Inc., et al., No. 12-1821, E.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138666).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California jury on Oct. 7 returned a verdict for two companies accused of exposing a man to asbestos at an oil refinery, sources told Mealey's Publications (James Harkin v. John Crane Inc., No. RG15758794, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Oct. 9 agreed with Symantec Corp. that a stay of patent infringement claims is warranted, while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decides whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) of the claims asserted in the case (Finjan Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-2998, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138561).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Oct. 8 denied a defendant's motion to stay a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) suit pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of Spokeo Inc. v. Robins (135 S. Ct. 1892 ) and Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo (135 S. Ct. 2806 ), finding that the plaintiff's alleged injuries in the present case clearly provide standing to pursue his claims no matter what the decision is in either high court case (John Doe v. Selection.com, No. 15-2338, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137903).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - An insured seeking coverage for more than $12 million in expenses that it incurred as a result of the suspension of its poultry operations because of salmonella contamination is owed coverage under a policy's accidental contamination coverage provision and the policy's government recall provision, a California federal judge said Oct. 9 (Foster Poultry Farms Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 14-953, E.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138609).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California jury on Oct. 7 returned a verdict for two companies accused of exposing a man to asbestos at an oil refinery, sources told Mealey Publications (James Harkin v. John Crane Inc., No. RG15758794, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Efforts by a trademark and copyright infringement defendant to defend the action in Pennsylvania were successful Oct. 7, when a California federal judge agreed to transfer the case (Adobe Systems Inc. v. Cardinal Camera & Video Center Inc., No. 15-2991, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137153).
SAN FRANCISCO - Two officers from a firm that makes applications (apps) used on certain Apple Inc. devices (iDevices), which are at the heart of a privacy class action, are not exempt from submitting to the plaintiffs' deposition requests, a California federal judge ruled Oct. 8, finding that both officers possessed unique and personal knowledge of the purported privacy violations (Marc Opperman, et al. v. Path Inc., et al., No. 3:13-CV-00453, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Oct. 6 declined to bar the chief executive officer of an anti-abortion organization from providing documents and videos in response to a congressional subpoena regarding a series of highly publicized anti-Planned Parenthood (PP) videos, disagreeing with an abortion rights firm's assertion that compliance with the subpoena would violate a prior court-issued temporary restraining order (TRO) (National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al., No. 3:15-cv-03522, N.C. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Oct. 8 entered judgment in favor of a disability claimant after determining that the claimant is entitled to the reinstatement of her long-term disability benefits because the evidence does not support the insurer's conclusion that the claimant's statements or her physicians' conclusions lack credibility (Lizabeth Healy v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Co., et al., No. 14-832, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122330).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge properly granted a yoga studio accused of copyright infringement summary judgment because the 26 yoga sequences asserted by a plaintiff are not copyrightable under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 8 (Bikram's Yoga College of India L.P. and Bikram Choudhury v. Evolation Yoga LLC, et al., No. 13-55763, 9th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17615).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Oct. 5 remanded a proposed class action in relation to employee misclassification filed on behalf of California truck drivers, who assert claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), finding that the $5 million amount in controversy requirement was not met (Leonard Vitale v. Celadon Trucking Services, et al., No. 15-5193, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135689).
LOS ANGELES - A defendant's interpretation of a patent license agreement was endorsed Oct. 5 when a California federal judge rejected claims that the defendant is obligated to make the same royalty payments it always had, even after the patent covered by the agreement expired (Miotox LLC v. Allergan Inc., et al., No. 14-8723, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135650).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - A California federal judge on Oct. 5 found that a borrower's claims for violation of the California's Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) should be dismissed because she failed to submit any grounds for disallowing the foreclosure of her property (Triphina Lesley v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 15-01696, C.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135698).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A California appellate panel erred when it refused to enforce an arbitration clause contained in a cable provider's customer agreement, the attorney for the cable provider argued Oct. 6 before the U.S. Supreme Court (DIRECTV, Inc. v. Amy Imburgia, et al., No. 14-462, U.S. Sup.).
FRESNO, Calif. - A California federal magistrate judge on Oct. 2 ruled that the claim files and the deposition of a nonparty subcontractor's insurance adjuster are discoverable for the purpose of determining if a conflict of interests existed that required the appointment of independent counsel, granting a home builder's motions to compel in a construction defects declaratory judgment action (Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Co., et al. v. Centex Homes, No. 1:14-cv-00826, E.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134923).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California appeals court on Oct. 2 affirmed a trial court's decision that a plaintiff did not have to arbitrate his claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and breach of fiduciary duty against a law firm, finding that no agreement to arbitrate existed (Terri Maxon v. Initiative Legal Group APC, et al., No. A139068, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2; 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7084).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge in California on Oct. 2 granted an insurer's motion to transfer an insurance breach of contract and bad faith action to another federal district court because the action could have been brought in the target district court and because transferring the action will be in the best interest for all involved from a convenience and fairness standpoint (Nicholas Thanos, M.D. v. Unum Life Insurance Co., No. 15-3616, N.D. Calif.; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134947).