Delwen Lowell Jensen

The case involved defendant Ethan Berry, who was indicted for Social Security representative fraud under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(5) for allegedly converting approximately $53,541 in child insurance benefits intended for his minor son to his own use between 2005 and 2006. Berry moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that he lacked fair notice that his conduct, particularly regarding retroactive lump-sum payments, was criminal, and that the rule of lenity should apply. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute clearly proscribes the misuse of benefits by representative payees, prior cases support such prosecutions, and there was no ambiguity warranting dismissal or application of lenity.

criminal law

The case concerned plaintiff Frank Shum's claims against Intel and related parties arising from the dissolution of Radiance Design, Inc., a company co-founded by Shum and Jean-Marc Verdiell to develop optoelectronic technology. Shum alleged he was improperly excluded as an inventor on seven patents later assigned to LightLogic and acquired by Intel, and asserted state-law claims including intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment based on events surrounding the withdrawal of an initial patent application and the formation of LightLogic. The court granted defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on all state-law claims, finding insufficient evidence to support them. On inventorship, the court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict that Shum was a co-inventor on specified claims of five patents, granted JMOL denying co-inventorship on particular claims of two other patents, and noted Shum had withdrawn his claim as to one patent.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerns a patent infringement dispute involving U.S. Patent No. 5,211,311, owned by DSU Medical, which covers needle guard devices designed to prevent accidental needle sticks in medical procedures. The court conducted a Daubert hearing to evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Robert Degnan regarding hypothetical lost profits damages based on a reconstructed contract between Medisystems and Fresenius, as well as damages calculations tied to sales of the WingEater needle guard. The court ruled that Dr. Degnan's testimony on the hypothetical contract and related damages was inadmissible because it relied on speculation without sound economic proof of market conditions or feasible contract terms. The court further held that sales of the WingEater, an acceptable noninfringing substitute, could not form the basis for compensable patent damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between two companies selling protocol analyzers for testing computer device compatibility, with CATC alleging that Catalyst's graphical user interface infringed CATC's trademark, trade dress, and copyright in its own GUI design, along with related unfair competition claims under federal and state law. After a jury trial, the jury found for CATC on the trademark infringement, willfulness, and unfair competition claims (awarding damages including lost profits), but for Catalyst on the trade dress and copyright claims. The court granted Catalyst's motion for a new trial on the trademark, willfulness, and unfair competition claims, as well as on the trade dress and copyright claims. The core reasoning was that the jury's verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, warranting a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) to avoid a miscarriage of justice, after the court weighed the evidence and assessed witness credibility.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which E-Pass Technologies sued 3Com, alleging that the Palm VII and VIIx devices infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, which covers a method and device for an electronic multi-function card that stores data from multiple credit, check, or identity cards. The court had previously construed the patent to require the device to have the width and outer dimensions of a standard credit card. On summary judgment, the court found no literal infringement because the Palm devices measure 3.25 by 5.25 by 0.75 inches, far exceeding credit-card size. It also rejected infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, holding that the size difference was substantial, that equivalence would vitiate the patent's core size limitation tied to its purpose of card substitutability, and that the accused products could not function as the patent intended.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement dispute concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, which describes a method and electronic multi-function card for storing data from multiple individual cards such as credit or identity cards, with access protected by a user-entered secret code. The court conducted claim construction as the first step in infringement analysis, focusing on the meaning of terms including 'activated' and 'entering said secret code into the multi-function card to activate the same.' Relying on the patent's intrinsic evidence such as the specification and claims, the court construed 'activated' to mean the state achieved when the user enters the secret code, enabling access to stored data sets like logos, photos, or signatures; it rejected interpretations tying activation strictly to powering on the device before code entry. The decision draws from the patent's descriptions linking activation to the initial loading process and visibility of data after code input.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a trademark dispute between 555-1212.com, Inc., which owns a federal registration for the mark "555-1212.com" in connection with online telephone directory databases, and Communication House International, Inc., which owns the domain name 555-1212.com. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the validity of its mark and likelihood of confusion, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant used the domain name in commerce beyond merely registering it. The court also held that the plaintiff did not offer admissible evidence showing a likelihood of consumer confusion or that the defendant's services were related to the plaintiff's field of use.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a trademark dispute in which plaintiff Quokka Sports claimed exclusive rights to operate the official website for the America's Cup sailing event and alleged that defendants infringed by registering and operating a site at the americascup.com domain name that appeared to masquerade as the official site. Plaintiff asserted claims including federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and cybersquatting under the recently enacted Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order after finding a likelihood of success on the trademark infringement claim based on valid U.S. marks held by the event's rights holder, the virtual identity of the domain name to the mark, and the similar content offered on the sites, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court also found a presumption of irreparable harm from the demonstrated likelihood of success, supported by evidence of harm such as links to gambling on defendants' site and diversion of traffic from the official site.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS) sued Medtronic, Inc. alleging that Medtronic's percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty catheters infringed ACS's Yock patents and a related improvement patent, which cover rapid-exchange catheter designs and methods for treating coronary artery disease. ACS moved for summary judgment of infringement on claim 3 of one patent and that the patents were neither invalid nor unenforceable due to obviousness or inequitable conduct. The court granted both motions, holding there were no genuine issues of material fact on infringement (which Medtronic did not oppose) and that Medtronic had not produced evidence creating triable issues on invalidity or intent to deceive the Patent Office. The ruling rested on application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards to the record of prior art, claim construction, and prosecution history.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute among former Dead Kennedys band members and their partnership Decay Music over termination of a record label's rights to exploit the band's music catalog, including claims for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary duty, contract, conversion, and unfair business practices. After defendant Biafra removed the state action to federal court based on copyright issues, the court remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims concerned state law matters between co-authors. On the subsequent motion, the court granted plaintiffs costs and attorney fees of $12,160.50 because removal was improper under settled precedent, would not have allowed the federal court to retain the case under any interpretation of the claims, and caused unnecessary expense.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate and survivors of Maria Teresa Macias, who was shot and killed by her ex-husband in 1996, against Sonoma County and its sheriff's department for alleged failures to protect her from ongoing domestic violence. Plaintiffs claimed that the department's discriminatory policies toward women and Latinos violated Macias's due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that no due process claim existed under DeShaney v. Winnebago County and that plaintiffs could not establish the department's inaction as the actual or legal cause of the death. The decision stressed limits on police liability for discretionary arrest decisions and public policy concerns against broad causation findings in such cases.

civil rightscriminal lawfamily law

The case involves the government's attempt to introduce a 1992 deposition of Guillermo Diaz, taken in a related civil forfeiture proceeding, as evidence in the criminal trial of Stephen Wilson on drug trafficking conspiracy charges, where Diaz is unavailable to testify. The court denied the motion to admit the deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1)'s former testimony exception. The core reasoning was that the government failed to demonstrate good faith efforts to secure Diaz's live testimony through reasonable means and that the deposition lacked sufficient indicia of reliability, as it was not conducted with the Confrontation Clause in mind, involved limited cross-examination opportunities, and was not the functional equivalent of in-person testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute among the four former members of the Dead Kennedys rock band, who formed a California general partnership called Decay Music to manage the band's music catalog, over the termination of Alternative Tentacles' rights to exploit the catalog, payment of royalties, and related partnership obligations, with three partners suing the fourth (Jello Biafra) and a distributor in state court on claims including declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. Biafra removed the action to federal court, arguing that the complaint raised claims arising under federal copyright law, but the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court. The court held that federal-question jurisdiction was absent because the well-pleaded complaint asserted only state-law causes of action concerning partnership rights, contract interpretation, and ownership among co-authors, rather than copyright infringement, and matters of title and co-owner rights are governed by state law.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involved plaintiffs suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after a national park ranger shot their dog during an incident at a campground in Redwood National Park, alleging assault and infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining claims against the United States, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against a dismissed defendant. The core reasoning was that the ranger's actions were reasonable given the perceived threat from the dog approaching him aggressively, thus not constituting wrongful conduct or outrageous behavior sufficient for the tort claims.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved multiple corporate and individual defendants in the Philippines-based moving industry who were indicted for conspiring to fix prices on transportation services for U.S. military household goods shipments, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The defendants, who had not appeared or had previously pled guilty, sought dismissal of the indictment or a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that their conduct fell within an exemption from antitrust liability under Section 7(a)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984. The court granted both the motion to dismiss and the petition for the writ, concluding that the Shipping Act immunized the charged price-fixing activity because it concerned services provided solely within the Philippines and did not require the indictment to negate the exemption as an element of the offense.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over whether St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance had a duty to defend Seagate Technology in lawsuits brought by Amstrad, a customer that purchased allegedly defective disk drives from Seagate and incorporated them into personal computers. After Amstrad sued Seagate for breach of contract, warranties, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation, Seagate sought coverage under St. Paul's umbrella policies, which St. Paul denied. The court granted St. Paul's motion for summary judgment and denied Seagate's cross-motion, holding that the underlying actions did not allege covered "property damage" because the claims concerned only the failure of Seagate's product to perform as promised without any physical harm to other property. The court reasoned that under California law, the mere incorporation of a defective product into another item does not constitute property damage triggering coverage, distinguishing cases involving inherently dangerous products or actual physical injury.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a patent infringement action in which Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS) sued SciMed Life Systems for allegedly infringing multiple patents on rapid exchange catheters used in percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures. SciMed moved for leave to amend its answer to add affirmative defenses of invalidity based on obviousness and anticipation as well as unenforceability based on inequitable conduct before the Patent Office; ACS opposed and filed a counter-motion for judgment on the pleadings as to several defenses, while SciMed filed a contingent motion to stay pending arbitration over prior settlement agreements. The court granted SciMed leave to amend under the liberal policy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, finding no undue delay, bad faith, or futility, because prior consent judgments and settlements did not have preclusive effect absent a showing that the accused devices were essentially the same as those in the earlier litigation. It denied ACS's counter-motion except that it struck SciMed's Fourth Defense, and it denied the motion for a stay.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves the City and County of San Francisco and ten other California counties suing cigarette manufacturers and their trade associations for costs incurred in providing medical care to indigent residents with smoking-related illnesses. Plaintiffs alleged a long-running conspiracy to suppress information about the health risks and addictiveness of smoking, false advertising, breach of duties, and related claims under federal RICO statutes as well as state law claims for fraud, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. The court denied defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs' private counsel under a contingent fee arrangement, finding the arrangement distinguishable from precedent because government attorneys retained control and the action was a civil tort suit rather than a public nuisance case. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint with leave to amend, primarily because plaintiffs failed to adequately plead RICO's proximate cause requirement and certain state claims were barred by a statute immunizing tobacco manufacturers from liability for injuries from tobacco use.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case is a class action securities fraud suit by purchasers of Interactive Network, Inc. (IN) stock against the TCI defendants (major shareholders with a board seat) alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 based on false statements about IN's interactive TV rollout plans, revenues, and prospects. The TCI defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they were not responsible for the statements and the group published information doctrine did not apply. The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, reasoning that allegations of TCI's stock ownership, board representation, and access to confidential information were insufficient to show the TCI defendants participated in day-to-day operations or authored the misleading statements, even under the group published information doctrine. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend to allege facts showing such involvement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Wilmarth v. City of Santa Rosa, plaintiff Laura Wilmarth, a senior clerk typist for the Santa Rosa Police Department, sued the city after developing carpal tunnel syndrome that limited her typing to one or two hours per day. She alleged the city failed to reasonably accommodate her disability by reassigning duties, transferring her, or providing other adjustments before placing her on disability retirement. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment, holding that Wilmarth did not qualify as disabled under the ADA because her condition did not substantially limit a major life activity, and that even if she were disabled, she could not perform the essential functions of her position and no reasonable accommodation was possible without undue hardship. The decision rested on medical evidence, job descriptions, the city's efforts to explore alternatives, and Wilmarth's own statements in disability benefit applications.

labor & employmentcivil rights