[05/16] Forrester Environmental v. Wheelabrator Technologies
Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.
[05/14] Khavarian Enterprises v. Commline
Trial court's orders denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs and granting the motion to strike its cost memorandum in favor of defendants are reversed and remanded, where parties to a settlement agreement can validly specify that one party is potentially a prevailing party and reserve for later determination by the trial court whether that party did prevail, as well as other factual matters involved in making an award of statutory attorney fees.
[05/13] Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
The doctrine of patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission.
[05/13] Motiva, LLC v. International Trade Commission
In action in which plaintiff alleged that Nintendo's Wii infringed its patents, and Nintendo's selling and importation of the Wii in the United States violated section 337 of the Tariff Act, the decision of the International Trade Commission that Nintendo did not violate section 337 is affirmed, where: 1) substantial evidence supports the Commission's finding that plaintiff's litigation against Nintendo was not an investment in commercializing plaintiff's patented technology that would develop a licensing program to encourage adoption and development of articles that incorporated plaintiff's patented technology; and 2) the Commission properly determined that a domestic industry does not exist nor is in the process of being established for plaintiff's patents.
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[04/30] Melendrez v. Superior Court (Special Electric Company, Inc.)
Where a bankrupt corporation had no officer, director, employee, or agent who could verify the discovery responses in a wrongful death action against said corporation, and the corporation's attorney signed the responses, the trial court is directed to vacate its orders deeming the discovery responses verified, and the matter is remanded, where: 1) the trial court could have directed that further effort be made to have a director elected or appointed on behalf of the corporation; and 2) if the corporation no longer exists and no director can be elected or appointed, the corporation's attorney-client privilege would be passed to its insurers, the de facto assignee of its policies and the claims against them.
[04/29] Mariotti, Sr. v. Mariotti Building Products, Inc.
Judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's claim of religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, is affirmed, where: 1) the test set forth in Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells for determining whether a shareholder-director of a professional corporation is an employee for purposes of the American with Disabilities Act is applicable to business entities that are not professional corporations in a Title VII employment action; and 2) the district court did not err in its determination that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint did not establish that he was an employee under Title VII.
[04/18] Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc.
Judgment of nonsuit in asbestos action alleging negligence and strict liability is reversed, where: 1) the evidence presented by plaintiff at trial, evaluated in a light most favorable to plaintiff, meets the standard set forth in Rutherford and its progeny for proving causation in asbestos cases; and 2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of defendant's lobbying activities under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because while a corporation's petitioning of government officials may not itself form the basis of liability under the doctrine, evidence of such petitioning activity may be admissible if otherwise relevant to show the purpose and character of other actions of the corporation.
[04/17] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
The Alien Tort Statute does not reach conduct occurring in a foreign sovereign's territory, where: 1) the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute; and 2) nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption. Therefore, the claim by Nigerian nationals now living in the U.S. against defendant corporations for aiding and abetting the Nigerian government in committing violations of the law of nations, which occurred outside the U.S., is barred.
[05/17] Olivas-Motta v. Holder
Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude based on information in police reports, is granted, where: 1) a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is a generic crime whose description is complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" is an element of the crime and an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA are limited to the record of conviction to determine whether an alien was convicted of a CIMT; 2) the Attorney General wrongly decided, in Matter of Silva-Trevino, which held otherwise; and 3) the IJ and the BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
[05/16] Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder
Petition for review of decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, is denied, where: 1) the immigration judge reasonably found that during each of petitioner's well-documented encounters, petitioner knowingly and voluntarily conceded his removability, waived his right to appear before an immigration judge, and chose to leave the United States in lieu of more formal proceedings; 2) petitioner's return to Mexico under those circumstances severed his continuous physical presence in the United States, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal; and 3) petitioner's appeal of his motion to reopen proceedings is denied.
[05/15] US v. Rodriguez
Sentence for illegally reentering the United States following a conviction for an aggravated felony is affirmed, where: 1) the district court acted well within its discretion in imposing the 57 months sentence to run consecutively to the existing state sentence; and thus, 2) the sentence was substantively reasonable.
[05/15] Madrigal v. Holder
Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to a former member of the Mexican military, is granted, and the matter is remanded where the BIA's decision: 1) employed incorrect legal standards; and 2) rests on factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.