Business
[02/08] Hanmi brings in financial adviser
[02/08] Ex-Intel executive pleads guilty in NYC to fraud
[02/08] European stocks take a breather from debt fears
More...

Top Headlines
[02/08] Reports: Toyota plans to recall 300,000 Priuses
[02/08] Michael Jackson doctor charged in singer's death
[02/08] Ex-Intel executive pleads guilty in NYC to fraud
More...

Government Contracts

[02/05] Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
In plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate a new contract between defendant-city and its competitor and to compel city to award the contract through competitive bidding, trial court's grant of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is reversed and remanded as, even if plaintiff's claims involve a public issue, they are not based on any statement, writing, or conduct by the city in furtherance of its right of free speech or its right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Rather, plaintiff's claims are based on state and municipal laws requiring the city to award certain contracts through competitive bidding, and thus, the claims are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.
More...

Intellectual Property

[02/05] SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[02/08] Johnson v. Weld County
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action based on defendant's failure to hire plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence suggesting that the male candidate it hired as Fiscal Officer had superior qualifications to plaintiff's, as well as its evidence that she was not, at the time of the hiring decision, disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
More...