Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[09/04] Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. v. Apotex, Inc.
In an action arising from alleged infringement of plaintiff's patent for the drug Risperdal, dismissal of defendant's counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where no actual and continuing injuries to defendant existed regarding: 1) its ability to promptly launch its generic risperidone product and compete in the market immediately upon the expiration of plaintiff's patent; 2) delay of approval of its noninfringing generic risperidone product; and 3) patent uncertainty resulting from the coverage of a covenant-not-to-sue.

[09/04] In re Swanson
In a case regarding the reexamination of a patent for a method of quantitatively analyzing small amounts of biological fluids, a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision affirming the examiner's rejection of certain claims is affirmed where: 1) a request for an ex parte reexamination of an issued patent upon a "substantial new question of patentability" was not barred by a prior court decision upholding the validity of a claim; and 2) substantial evidence supported the board's conclusion that there was a substantial new question of patentability in this case sufficient to warrant reexamination.

[09/04] Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco v. Culbro Corp.
In a case arising from a dispute over the ownership of the COHIBA mark on cigars sold in the U.S., denial of motion directing U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to dismiss pending petitions to cancel defendant's registration of the trademark, is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the relief requested.

[09/03] Omega v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
In a copyright infringement action under 17 U.S.C. sections 106(3) and 602(a), grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where non-counterfeit goods were first sold outside the U.S. and then imported for sale in the U.S. without the copyright holder's authorization, thus the first sale doctrine, section 109(a), does not apply.

More...

Insurance Law

[09/03] McMillan v. Stroud
In a challenge to a probate court order directing plaintiff to pay a lien issued by defendant State Department of Health Care Services under the Medi-Cal California Medical Assistance Program, court order is affirmed where plaintiffs: 1) did not establish how much of the initial settlement constitutes reimbursement for medical expenses; 2) presented no contemporaneous evidence of discussions at the time of settlement on the subject; and 3) failed to provide defendant with the name of purported medical carrier which would have allowed defendant to attempt to determine the true value of medical expenses in this case. Given this record, the court was satisfied that $83,837.43 constituted a fair determination of the amount of reimbursable medical expenses due to defendant.

[09/03] Officer v. Chase Ins. Life & Annuity Co.
In a suit to recover the face amount of plaintiff's wife's life insurance policy, denial of summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed, and request for certification of questions to the Indiana Supreme Court is denied, where: 1) the policy's suicide provision was unambiguous, valid and enforceable, and not a disproportionate forfeiture or illegal penalty; and 2) the doctrine of substantial performance did not apply to a time-limited suicide exclusion.

[09/02] Adams v. Monumental Gen. Cas., Co.
In a lawsuit filed by plaintiff-insured truck owner against defendant-insurer for a refund of portion of her premium because she paid the loan early, appeal of grant of motion to compel arbitration is dismissed where: 1) court has no jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court compelled arbitration; and 2) when a district court compels arbitration of a dispute under one contract and is silent about whether another contract provides for arbitration of the same dispute, section 16(a)(1)(B) is not implicated.

[08/29] Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
In a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff-insurer did not have coverage and did not owe defendant's defense costs for a suit against defendant-insured, judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) an insurer's contractual coverage under a claims-made policy can be expanded by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel to cover a risk not otherwise within the policy coverage, namely a suit against the insured that was not reported until after the policy expired; but 2) the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to re-write the contract of insurance and provide contractual coverage for risks not insured.

More...

Environmental Law

[09/03] Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson
In a matter brought under the Clean Water Act (CWA), judgment of district court in favor of defendant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' challenge to the EPA's approval of Kentucky's categorical exemption of six types of pollution discharges from Tier II review, though the EPA's decision document details the tests conducted to measure each exemption's impact, the document often fails to include the resulting measurements; 2) court cannot review this legal conclusion's reasonableness without the EPA first discussing its assimilative-capacity loss estimates and explaining why it deems them insignificant; 3) EPA's approval of Kentucky's classification of certain waters as eligible for Tier I protection rather than Tier II protection was not arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Case is remanded to EPA so that it may address the deficiencies in its consideration of state's de minimis exemptions.

[09/02] Geerston Seed Farms v. Monsato Co.
In a National Environmental Policy Act case, grant of permanent injunction against planting disputed genetically engineered alfalfa seed pending completion by the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of an Environmental Impact Statement and deregulation decision, is affirmed despite the lack of an evidentiary hearing because the district court performed the traditional balancing test and the injunction would last only until completion of APHIS analysis.

[09/02] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Comm'n.
Judgment overturning rejection of petition is affirmed where the California Fish and Game Commission erred in rejecting at the threshold a petition to add the California tiger salamander to the Commission's list of endangered species, under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

[09/02] Sierra Club v. Johnson
In a Clean Air Act case involving a dispute over what triggers the Environmental Protection Agency's statutory duty to object to the issuance of a Title V operating permit, petition to review EPA decision is denied where: 1) EPA Administrator's actions fell within the bounds of his discretion; and 2) a violation notice and civil complaint are merely initial steps in an enforcement action and do not, by themselves, inevitably trigger the EPA Administrator's duty to object under 42 U.S.C. section 7661d(b)(2).

More...

Commercial Law

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

[09/03] Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm
In a suit over violations of a franchise agreement, judgment of contempt for failure to comply with a preliminary injunction to make available to plaintiff certain items, including patient files, is affirmed where: 1) defendant was given an opportunity to purge the contempt through compliance; 2) defendant waived his arguments that the sanction was excessive and unrelated to plaintiff's damages; and 3) defendant was given sufficient leniency as a pro se litigant.

[09/03] Extra Equipamentos e Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp.
In a commercial fraud case alleging that defendant induced plaintiff to sign a release of its claims in litigation by promising to retain plaintiff as a distributor of its products, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed and awards of costs affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a no-reliance clause in the release was enforceable to prevent plaintiff from recovering for fraud; and 2) the language of 28 U.S.C. section 1920(6) authorizing awards for "compensation of interpreters" does not authorize the awarding of fees for translation of written documents.

[09/03] Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn v. Landstar Sys.
In a class action lawsuit brought against defendant motor carrier alleging that freight hauling leases violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations for failing to disclose that banking fee charges would be deducted from compensation paid to the truck owners and drivers, partial summary judgment and award of damages in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred in finding that defendant was not required to disclose banking fee charge and document charge-back items; 2) district court erred in granting an injunction sealing the pricing information provided to defendant company; 3) district court correctly ruled that section 276.12(h) requires defendant to provide documentation related to charge-back items but erred in concluding that defendant met the requirement; and 4)district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class for actual damages.

More...