Government Benefits

[03/08] Wildman v. Astrue
In a petition for review of the denial of social security disability benefits, the petition is denied where: 1) the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in discounting a physician's opinion because it was conclusory and failed to account for petitioner's unjustified noncompliance; 2) the ALJ did not err when he discounted petitioner's testimony regarding her limitations due to her noncompliance; and 3) the ALJ properly considered and weighed the available medical evidence and petitioner's testimony.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/03] California Pharm. Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly
In an action to enjoin the California Department of Health Care Services Director from implementing state legislation reducing payments to certain medical service providers, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where the state failed to study the impact of a 5% percent rate reduction on the statutory factors of efficiency, economy, quality, and access to care prior to implementing the rate reductions.

[03/03] Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger
In an action to enjoin California legislation that reduces the state contribution to wages paid to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) providers as preempted by Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act, a grant of the injunction is affirmed where: 1) both the legislature and the Department of Social Services recognized that reimbursement rates ? that is, providers' wages and benefits ? were directly correlated to ensuring that services were consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, and sufficient to ensure access to services under the IHSS program; 2) the state should have studied the impact of its decreased contribution to providers' wages and benefits prior to passing Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code section 12306.1(d)(6), and the State was not ipso facto immunized from challenges to its actions because it had no system in place to make such an assessment; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs established irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, as its finding regarding provider harm was not clearly erroneous.

[03/02] St. John's Well Child & Family Ctr. v. Schwarzenegger
In a petition for writ of mandate by a nonprofit network of five community health centers and six school-based clinics in medically underserved areas of the state, claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger's use of his line-item veto authority exceeded constitutional limits because individual budget cuts he further reduced were not items of appropriation that could be individually vetoed or reduced, the petition is denied as the particular Assembly Bill 4X 1 budget reductions at issue were "items of appropriation" within the meaning of article IV, section 10(e) of the state constitution and the governor's line-item vetoes reducing them, while approving other portions of the Bill, were constitutionally authorized.

[02/25] Denton v. Astrue
An ALJ's denial of claimant's application for disability benefits claiming that she could not work because of certain physical and mental illnesses is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did fully consider the impact of claimant's depression and related symptoms; and 2) the ALJ's finding of no disability was supported by substantial evidence.

[02/25] US v. Phillips
Conviction of defendant for Medicare fraud is affirmed where: 1) defendant can show no plain error in denying her motion to exclude redacted recording nor can she show admission of a recording likely changed the trial's outcome; 2) there was no error when admitting a redacted recording in failing to consider redacted exculpatory statements because defendant had the burden of pointing them out and she failed to do so; and 3) defendant waived her remaining arguments.

[02/23] Wright-Hines v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Denial of plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ noted that a written report from the vocational expert (VE) was consistent with his conclusion that plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant work as a cashier; 2) ALJ never posed a hypothetical question to the VE; 3) ALJ's determination that plaintiff had past relevant work as a cashier was supported by substantial evidence; and 4) plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in denying her motion for default judgment under Fed. Civ. Rule 55 is without merit.

[02/22] Cooper v. FAA
In a Privacy Act action based on an exchange of information about plaintiff performed as part of a joint criminal investigation by multiple federal agencies, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where actual damages under the Privacy Act encompasses both pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.

[02/18] US v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc.
In a consolidated appeal, requiring interpretation of the Equal Access to Justice Act involving the issue of whether the government's position was substantially justified, district court's judgment is reversed in two cases and affirmed in the last case where: 1) in the case against a project site engineer, the government had a substantial though not winning case, and therefore plaintiff failed to establish its right to an award; 2) in the second case involving social security disability benefits, district court's denial of fees to the prevailing claimant is reversed as government's position was not substantially justified; and 3) district court's reversal of ALJ's denial of plaintiff's disability benefits but denial of his fees is affirmed as the district judge was persuaded that the agency's position had been substantially justified.

[02/18] Service Employees Int'l., Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Program
In a petition for review of an order of the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor awarding claimant compensation under the Defense Base Act for temporary total disability and temporary partial disability, the petition is denied where substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge's finding that claimant's pterygia was caused or aggravated by his working conditions in Iraq.

[02/11] Zabala v. Astrue
Petition for review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of petitioner's application for Supplemental Security Income is denied where, although an administrative law judge improperly declined to consider a report by a treating psychiatrist, the report was substantially duplicative, such that consideration of the report would not have affected the disability determination.

[02/08] Hall v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston
In plaintiff's suit seeking reinstatement of her long-term disability benefits, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment with respect to benefit plan's termination of plaintiff's benefits and its claim for partial reimbursement is affirmed; and 2) district court's imposition of an equitable lien on plaintiff's Social Security benefits and its denial of attorney fees to the benefits plan are vacated and remanded.

[02/05] Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
District court's decision upholding a denial of petitioner's claim for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. sections 416(i) and 423(d) is reversed and remanded as the ALJ's determination that petitioner was able to perform a substantial number of other jobs was not supported by substantial evidence.

[02/02] Basden v. Wagner
Denial of petitioner's request for extraordinary relief, wherein the trial court agreed with the director of the state Department of Social Services that plaintiff was not entitled to any IHSS-funded in-home service provided by her mother is reversed as Welfare & Institutions Code section 12300(e)'s reference to full-time employee does not include providing in-home, full-time, IHSS funded care by a parent to a child so as to bar the parent from being compensated for providing in-home, full-time, IHSS-funded care to another of her children, and to interpret the statute otherwise would frustrate the IHSS programs' very purpose.
More...

Intellectual Property

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[03/02] Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[03/01] Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed certain claims of plaintiff's patent, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, and that certain dependent claims were obvious is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) defendant's contention that a new trial is required because the district court's claim constructions were in error is rejected as the court's claim constructions were correct; but 2) the district court was required to grant a new trial because the jury's verdicts on obviousness were irreconcilably inconsistent.

[03/01] Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.

[02/25] Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper
In a copyright infringement action based on unlawful file sharing, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the uncontroverted evidence was more than sufficient to compel a finding that defendant had downloaded the files; and 2) defendant infringed plaintiffs' exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works by downloading the 37 audio files to her computer without authorization. Moreover, the partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where lack of legal sophistication could not overcome a properly asserted 17 U.S.C. 402(d) limitation to the innocent infringer defense.

[02/25] Gaylord v. US
In plaintiff's suit against the United States for copyright infringement involving stamps issued by the US Postal Service that made use of plaintiff's copyrighted work, depicting part of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) weighing the factors, the government's use of plaintiff's copyrighted work in the stamp was not a fair use; and 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in determining that authorship of the art rested solely with plaintiff.

[02/25] Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for patent infringement for patents relating to software for displaying the market for a commodity traded in an electronic exchange, judgment of district court is affirmed where: 1) defendant's infringed the asserted claims of one patent with one accused service product, but not willfully; 2) the two other accused products did not literally infringe, and as such, plaintiff is precluded from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 3) the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. section 102(b) does not apply; 4) there are no indefiniteness problems in the asserted claims; and 5) there is no finding of inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit.

[02/24] In re Chapman
Decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences, finding that certain claims of an application directed at technology involving divalent antibody fragments were unpatentable as obvious, is vacated and remanded as the Board's opinion includes erroneous statements that are not harmless because they increase the likelihood that plaintiff was erroneously denied a patent on grounds of obviousness.

[02/24] Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's action for unfair competition under 19 U.S.C. section 337 and patent infringement relating to their patented footwear, the United States International Trade Commission's judgment is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Commission erred in finding that the prior art taught all of the claimed elements of the '858 patent and incorrectly weighed the secondary considerations; 2) thus, the Commission erred in finding that the '858 patent would have been obvious; and 3) Commission erred in claim construction for the '789 patent in applying the ordinary observer industry requirement and in applying the technical prong of the 19 U.S.C. section 337 domestic industry requirement.

[02/19] Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Sys., L.L.C.
In a copyright infringement action based on defendant's alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's paper templates designed to capture a physician-patient encounter, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the selection and arrangement of the terms in the template did not convey information and was not sufficiently original.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[03/09] San Francisco Hous. Auth. v. SEIU Local 790
Superior court's order vacating an arbitration award in its entirety on the ground that the the award is contrary to layoff provisions of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties is reversed as the remedy imposed by the arbitrator did not conflict with clear and explicit language of the MOU and it was rationally related to the breach identified.

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.

[03/04] Smith v. Adventist Health Sys.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-hospital group seeking a preliminary injunction for rejecting his application for hospital privileges and medical staff membership at defendant's hospital, judgment granting the injunction and restoring his privileges is affirmed and the court did not err when it: 1) impliedly found that a statutorily required injunction bond had been waived or forfeited; 2) expressly found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and 3) balanced the likely interim harm to the parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction.

[03/04] Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro
In plaintiff's action against his employer, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and several PREPA officials, claiming that the new Popular Democratic Party (PDP) regime discriminated against him because he was a member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) under Branti v, Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), and its progeny, the position of administrator is not within First Amendment protection because it is a policy position; 2) political discrimination and retaliation claims under the First Amendment cannot be restated as claims under the Equal Protection Clause; and 3) plaintiff did not state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he did not allege he was involved in FLSA-protected activity.

[03/04] Roche v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
Decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a case brought by a former FAA employer who was terminated from his position as an Air Traffic Control Specialist for sexual harassment is affirmed as the Board did not err in finding that it may hear FAA removal appeals only from Title 5-qualifying employees.

[03/04] Budde v. Kane County Forest Pres.
In a police chief's action against his former employer claiming discrimination based on his disability of alcoholism, in violation of the ADA, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the employer terminated the plaintiff because of his misconduct, not due to discrimination; 2) plaintiff was not "qualified" to perform his job as police chief based on his failure to comply with workplace rules and his inability to operate a vehicle; and 3) plaintiff's claims for failure to accommodate his alcoholism and retaliation for seeking an accommodation are without merit.

[03/03] Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp.
In an age discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not show that a comment by a coworker was proximate in time to the termination or related to the employment decision, and thus the comment could not qualify as direct evidence; and 2) plaintiff's assertion of innocence alone did not create a factual issue as to the falsity of defendant's proffered reason for terminating him.

[03/03] City of Laguna Beach v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass'n
In a city's action against an insurance company seeking reimbursement for incurring workers' compensation liability that exceeded its self-insured retention, grant of insurance company's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the addition of subdivision (c)(13) to Ins. Code section 1063.1 did not abrogate Denny's Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal.App.4th 1433 (2003); 2) the trial court properly invoked the Denny's rule when it granted summary judgment and concluded that the city cannot obtain reimbursement from defendant under section 1063.1(c)(13) as, although this provision renders the obligation of an insolvent excess workers' compensation insurer a "covered claim" that defendant must ordinarily reimburse, defendant need not reimburse a permissibly self-insured employer for benefits paid to an employee for cumulative injury if the employer's liability is based in part on a period of time when the employer was self-insured and chose not to buy excess insurance for the particular risk.

[03/03] Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc.
In a suit brought by past and present Wal-Mart employees and their spouses, claiming injuries caused by exposure to carbon monoxide gas in the enclosed freezer section of a Wal-Mart Distribution Center during a two-week period in late 2005, dismissal of a second group of plaintiffs' claims as time-barred is affirmed where: 1) new plaintiffs cite no authority permitting relation back to the filing date of the original plaintiffs' claims under these circumstances; and 2) the district court did not err in holding that Kentucky's "discovery rule" did not apply to toll the statute of limitations.

[03/02] Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees' Div. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
In an action by a union claiming that a railroad's proposed sale of a portion of its rail line to the state violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA), dismissal of the action is affirmed where the RLA reserved the dispute in this case to the Adjustment Board in the first instance, thus depriving the district court of jurisdiction, and the workers' remedy thus lay in the administrative process before the Adjustment Board.

[03/02] Rutti v. Vermillion
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant's vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer's vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff's postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff's principal activities.

[03/02] Brzak v. United Nations
In a sex discrimination action against the United Nations and various UN officials, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the UN and the related individual defendants had, respectively, absolute and functional immunity from suit; and 2) plaintiffs offered no principled arguments as to why the continuing existence of immunities violates the Constitution.
More...