Government Benefits

[10/10] Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles
In an action brought taxpayer-plaintiff challenging the validity of the benefits defendant-county provides to its superior court judges, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-county is reversed where: 1) the benefits provided by the county were compensation within the meaning of section 19, article VI of the Constitution; and 2) the record did not establish those benefits had been prescribed by the Legislature.

[10/10] Lamour v. Peake
Denial of a request to reopen a claim for survivor benefits as the spouse of a veteran is vacated and remanded where the issue of whether claimant and decedent had a valid marriage was not considered with application of the "deemed valid" criteria in the relevant regulation, and since this aspect was the sole basis of the rejection of claimant's petition to reopen her claim.

[10/09] Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
In a class action lawsuit alleging that the compensation structure of defendant-school district violated state minimum wage laws, denial of plaintiff's writ of mandate challenging trial court decision that Labor Code's minimum wage provisions did not apply to defendant, is affirmed where: 1) adult education teachers fall within the professional exemption to Wage Order 4-2001; and 2) the salary structure did not violate Education Code section 45025, which requires proportional compensation for part-time employees.

[10/09] Hogan v. Peake
Denial of a veteran's claim for service connection for generalized anxiety disorder is affirmed where the Veterans Court did not adopt a rule that a medical opinion lacks credibility if it does not state definitively or with "absolute medical certainty" when a particular disorder or condition began.

[10/09] Haas v. Peake
In a petition by a Vietnam veteran seeking benefits related to Agent Orange exposure, petition for rehearing is denied where the statutory phrase "in the Republic of Vietnam" was reasonably interpreted by the agency to apply only to those veterans who had actually set foot on land, not to those who had only served on ships within the territorial seas adjacent to the Vietnamese mainland.

[10/07] Overman v. Astrue
In a claim for Social Security disability and supplemental security income payments, denial of benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) the ALJ had a duty to investigate conflicts between the testimony of a vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; and 2) the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence.

[10/02] US v. Salina Reg'l Health Ctr., Inc.
A qui tam plaintiff, proceeding under the False Claims Act (FCA), cannot maintain a cause of action against a Medicare provider based on an allegation that the provider's certification of compliance with Medicare statutes and regulations, contained in the annual cost report, renders all claims submitted for reimbursement by that provider false within the meaning of the FCA.

[10/01] White v. US
In a claim by an estate for benefits allegedly due to decedent under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act (PSOBA), award of benefits is affirmed where: 1) the time frame for which eligibility for PSOBA death benefits is determined is based upon the time of the public safety officer's death and not on some subsequent time; and 2) the death of an otherwise eligible beneficiary before the government issues payment does not relieve the government of its obligation to pay benefits under PSOBA.

[10/01] Estate of Marion Landers v. Leavitt
In a putative class action brought by Medicare participants challenging denial of coverage for post-hospitalization care in skilled nursing facilities, decision certifying the class and granting judgment to the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the interpretation of the qualifying stay requirement set forth in the government's Medicare Benefit Policy Manual was not entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984); 2) a Medicare beneficiary is not an inpatient within the meaning of section 1395x(i) unless he or she has been formally admitted to a hospital; 3) the rule does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection; 4) the district court correctly excluded interrogatories because they represented post hoc statements from the agency; and 5) the district court also correctly excluded plaintiff's declarations and statements of material facts.

[09/30] Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.

[09/29] Conley v. Peake
In a claim for veterans' benefits, affirmation of Board of Veterans' Appeals decision denying claimant an earlier effective date for his service-connected major depressive disorder is affirmed where 38 U.S.C. section 105(a) requires a veteran to show the existence of a present disability and a causal relationship between the present disability and the injury, disease, or aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease incurred during active duty.

[09/25] Crawford v. Astrue
In a dispute involving fees awarded to attorneys for successful representation of social security claimants, the fees awarded are affirmed where the district court satisfied 42 U.S.C. section 406(b)(1)(A) by using reasonable factors in reviewing the fees requested and calculating fees awarded.

[09/25] Medrano v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a workers' compensation matter, decision finding that amount of petitioner's earning from subsequent employment must be subtracted from vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) to which he was entitled is annulled and Workers' Compensation Board Judge's decision is reinstated where: 1) VRMA is not a wage replacement benefit; and 2) therefore there should be no credit against the worker's VRMA payments for wages earned during the same period the worker was awarded VRMA payments.

[09/25] Maryland Dep't. of Health and Mental Hygiene v. Ctrs. for Medicare and Medicaid Servs.
Petition for review of disapproval of amendment to State Medicaid Plan (SPA) that sought to eliminate deductions for uncovered medical expenses that Medicaid recipients incurred before becoming eligible for benefits is denied where: 1) in promulgating regulations for states to follow in calculating the post-eligibility income of nursing home residents, respondent-agency did not clearly exceed its authority; and 2) respondent-agency's interpretation of SPA was not unambiguously rejected by the plain language of section 1396(r)(1)(A).

[09/23] Guzman v. Shewry
In a case about suspension of a doctor from the Medi-Cal program, denial of a preliminary injunction to halt plaintiff's suspension is affirmed where: 1) California Welfare and Institutions Code section 14043.36(a) is not preempted by federal Medicaid law; 2) nothing within federal Medicaid law gives plaintiff an enforceable federal right to a hearing before suspension by the state from Medi-Cal; and 3) suspension from Medi-Cal does not deprive plaintiff of freedom or due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
More...

Intellectual Property

[10/10] Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.
In an infringement suit over a patent describing a system for tracking articles such as semiconductor wafers in a manufacturing facility, judgment as a matter of law of invalidity due to obviousness is affirmed where: 1) a prior patent disclosed the same "sensing means" as plaintiff's patent; 2) the invention obtained in plaintiff's patent would hav been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art; and 3) a change in claim construction resulting from decisions on prior appeals was grounds for defendant to amend its defenses.

[10/10] Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.
In an infringement suit over two patents relating to the separation of synchronization signals from video signals, rulings on validity, infringement, and inequitable conduct are affirmed where: 1) on an invalidity claim, the burden of production was properly shifted to plaintiff to show evidence that the asserted claim was entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art, and an earlier patent did not provide adequate written description support showing that the inventor was in possession of the invention claimed in the later patent; 2) there was no clear error in a finding of infringement of one of the disputed claims; 3) another claim was not invalid for indefiniteness; and 4) the inventor did not commit inequitable conduct by failing to disclose certain prior art.

[10/10] Licciardello v. Lovelady
In an action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act brought by a Christian musician and entertainer against his former manager, grant of motion to dismiss for lack of persona jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Constitution was not offended by the exercise of Florida's longarm statute to effect personal jurisdiction over defendant because his intentional conduct in his state of residence was calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in Florida; and 2) the Constitution was not offended by Florida's assertion of its jurisdiction over such nonresident tortfeasors.

[10/09] Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Oleas Enter., Inc.
In a breach of warranty lawsuit brought by plaintiff-clothing retailer, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed where: 1) the trial court's interpretation of rightful claim was erroneous; 2) a rightful claim under section 2312(3) is a nonfrivolous claim of infringement that has any significant and adverse effect on the buyer's ability to make use of the purchased goods; and 3) under this standard, the trial court could not properly concluded, as a matter of law, that the third party infringement claim against plaintiff was not a rightful claim.

[10/09] Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc.
In a suit alleging infringement of a patent relating to measurement and analysis technologies for use in software development, summary judgment of invalidity is reversed and remanded where amendments made during reexamination did not improperly broaden the scope of the claims.

[10/08] Motorola Inc. v. Amkor Tech., Inc.
In a suit over the terms of a patent license agreement (PLA) between plaintiff and a third party, affecting the transfer of an interest in the patents to defendant, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not judicially estopped from changing its argument during trial about the relationship between two sections of the PLA; 2) the "law of the case" did not prevent defendant from changing its arguments on an earlier remand; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact.

[10/07] Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp.
In three related actions alleging infringement of two patents describing high-performance liquid chromatography columns, jury verdict of infringement in one action, summary judgment for plaintiff in a second action, and summary judgment of noninfringement in the third action are affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court properly construed the term "rigid" and properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law; 2) there was no clear error in the conclusion that defendant failed to prove the deceptive intent necessary to sustain its claim of inequitable conduct; 3) there was error in the entry of judgment as a matter of law on anticipation without submitting the issue to the jury; 4) under the correct construction of "greater than about 30 micrometers," defendant was not entitled to summary judgment of no literal infringement; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 6) judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to lost profits required remand and reconsideration; 7) defendant's infringement was not willful; and 8) the matter would not be reassigned to a different district court judge on remand, despite lengthy delays in prior rulings.

[10/03] Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc.
In a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not infringe defendant's patent for a drug to treat ALS, judgment that an earlier patent did not anticipate the claims of the patent at issue is affirmed where the district court applied the proper enablement standard and correctly determined that the earlier patent was not an enabling prior art reference.

[10/02] The Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp.
In a suit over three patents describing methods for mechanically fragmenting blood clots, judgment of infringement and contributory infringement is reversed and remanded where the jury's verdict of infringement was not supported by substantial evidence.

[09/29] Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.
In a suit alleging infringement of three patents describing pressurized storage containers for fluids used in making semiconductors, judgment of infringement of some claims, unenforceability of two of the patents for inequitable conduct, and invalidity for indefiniteness of other claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) one patent was unenforceable for inequitable conduct, but another was not as no intent finding was made as to the withholding of prior art; 2) construction of a claim term was not indefinite; and 3) the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's cross-appeal.

[09/25] US v. Able Time, Inc.
In an suit involving allegedly counterfeit watches seized by Customs and the resulting civil penalties imposed, grant of summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Tariff Act does not contain an identity of goods or services requirement; and 2) as a matter of law, goods imported by defendant could not be "merchandise bearing a counterfeit mark" under 19 U.S.C. section 1526(e) because the owner of the trademark in question did not at the time make the type of goods imported by defendant.

[09/25] Lucent Techs, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In an action alleging infringement of two patents directed to methods of compressing digital audio files, judgment as a matter of law for defendants is affirmed where: 1) two of the claims were invented during a period covered by a joint development agreement between plaintiff and a third party, and were therefore New Work; 2) the New Work made the third-party inventor a co-owner of the patent, and without it as a party plaintiffs lacked standing; and 3) the jury lacked substantial evidence for its finding of infringement.

[09/24] Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
In a suit over three patents for baseband processor chips used in 3G mobile telephone handsets, jury findings of infringement and issuance of a permanent injunction against defendant are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the disputed claim of one of the patents, properly construed, was invalid; 2) the claims of a second patent were properly construed; 3) substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of infringement on two of the three patents, and of induced infringement; and 4) the permanent injunction was properly issued with respect to the two valid patents upon consideration of the relevant factors.

[09/22] Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.
In an infringement suit over patents for electronic gaming machines, summary judgment for defendants on the ground that plaintiff had abandoned its application when it unintentionally paid a filing fee late, and that the patent had subsequently been "improperly revived" by the PTO, is reversed where "improper revival" may not be raised as a defense in an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent.

[09/22] Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
In an infringement suit over a design patent for a nail buffer, summary judgment of noninfringement is affirmed where: 1) the "point of novelty" test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement; 2) the "ordinary observer" test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed; 3) under the ordinary observer test, infringement will not be found unless the accused article "embodies the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof"; 4) when a district court conducts claim construction in design patent cases, the level of detail to be used in describing the claimed design is a matter within the court's discretion, and absent a showing of prejudice, the court's decision to issue a relatively detailed claim construction will not be reversible error; and 5) in this case, the accused design could not reasonably be viewed as so similar to the claimed design that a purchaser familiar with the prior art would be deceived by the similarity between the claimed and accused designs.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[10/10] Tate v. Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc.
In a suit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation, jury verdict for plaintiff on his retaliation claim is reversed where plaintiff produced no evidence that he had engaged in protected activity by protesting his supervisor's alleged harassment.

[10/09] Lane v. Celadon Trucking, Inc.
In a case involving application of Indiana's lien reduction statute to defendant's worker's compensation subrogation lien on proceeds from a third-party settlement reached by plaintiff-former employee, decision to apply Indiana state law rather than Arkansas' made-whole doctrine is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) court did not believe the Arkansas Supreme Court would automatically apply the law of the state where the worker's compensation benefits were paid; 2) if faced with a choice-of-law question involving a dispute over worker's compensation subrogation rights, court predicted Arkansas Supreme Court would follow the district court's judgment in Simpson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. in which defendant-worker's compensation carrier for employer was entitled to the proceeds in dispute; and 3) the lien reduction statute did not apply to defendant's lien and the district court erred in applying it.

[10/09] Kettenring v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
In a class action lawsuit alleging that the compensation structure of defendant-school district violated state minimum wage laws, denial of plaintiff's writ of mandate challenging trial court decision that Labor Code's minimum wage provisions did not apply to defendant, is affirmed where: 1) adult education teachers fall within the professional exemption to Wage Order 4-2001; and 2) the salary structure did not violate Education Code section 45025, which requires proportional compensation for part-time employees.

[10/08] Lineback v. Spurlino Materials, LLC
In a suit by the NLRB alleging violations of federal labor laws, grant of a preliminary injunction against defendant, enjoining it from engaging in unfair labor practices, is affirmed where: 1) an award of damages in future years would be an inadequate remedy; 2) defendant's employees were likely to suffer substantial and irreparable harm if defendant were allowed to continue to subvert the union until the case was resolved; 3) injunctive relief was in the public interest; 4) plaintiff had a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits; and 5) the injunction itself was sufficiently specific as to the acts restrained or required.

[10/07] Berkeley Police Assoc. v. City of Berkeley
Grant of plaintiff-police association's writ of mandate against defendants-city and Police Review Commission (PRC) is affirmed where: 1) the records and findings of the PRC were protected from disclosure under section 832.7(a), both as "records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5" and as "personnel records"; 2) the trial court properly held that defendants must comply with section 832.7 and not disclose peace officer personnel records except in accordance with the contingencies specified in that section and must cease permitting the public to access PRC investigations, reports, hearings, and findings; 3) when officers are made to appear for interrogation or a factfinding hearing by order of their employer and under penalty of disciplinary sanction up to and including dismissal for failing to comply, this is tantamount to being subjected to interrogation by the officer's "commanding officer, or [another] member of the employing public safety department."; and 4) the trial court was thus correct in holding that Government Code section 3303 applied to PRC proceedings and in ordering defendants to comply with it.

[10/07] Drake v. Agency for Int'l Dev.
In an action charging retaliation against petitioner-employee for his whistleblowing activity, denial by the Merit Systems Protection Board of petitioner's claim is reversed and remanded where petitioner had made a disclosure protected under 5 U.S.C. section 2302(b)(8).

[10/07] Overman v. Astrue
In a claim for Social Security disability and supplemental security income payments, denial of benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) the ALJ had a duty to investigate conflicts between the testimony of a vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; and 2) the ruling was not supported by substantial evidence.

[10/07] Dibble v. Fenimore
In an action for administrative relief brought by plaintiff-state National Guard service technician who was denied reenlistment, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-Secretary of the Air Force is affirmed where: 1) the doctrine of intramilitary immunity does not preclude a federal court from reviewing a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act to a decision by the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records; and 2) the district court correctly found that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.

[10/07] Lambert v. Austin
In a suit against former employer for alleged age and race discrimination and retaliatory discrimination, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration is reversed where: 1) the Open Door policy constituted a valid, enforceable agreement between defendant and its employees; and 2) the Open Door policy was designed to cover the particular type of workplace dispute plaintiff-employee's law suit presented.

[10/06] Archuleta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action involving whether certain full-time pharmacists working for Wal-Mart from 1993 through 1998 fell within an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) general overtime pay requirement, summary judgment for Wal-Mart is reversed in part where there was sufficient evidence to establish a genuinely disputed issue of material fact as to two plaintiffs regarding whether, although Wal-Mart purported to pay them as salaried professionals, it actually changed their salaries so frequently that it treated them as hourly non-exempt employees.

[10/06] Stillwell v. Salvation Army
In an employment action in which plaintiff-former employee claimed that former employer-The Salvation Army (TSA) breached an implied employment agreement to terminate plaintiff only for good cause, grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of defendant is reversed and the matter remanded where the record contained substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict that defendant promised to terminate plaintiff only for cause.

[10/06] Enica v. Principi
In a claim brought by nurse-plaintiff employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs alleging failure to accommodate her disability, grant of summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to meet her burden of establishing that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) failed to accommodate her disability in 1996 or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act; and 2) there is sufficient evidence on record to establish a triable issue as to whether the VA failed to implement the accommodation requests at the time of plaintiff's transfer to the CSU in 2002.

[10/06] Burrus v. State Lottery Comm'n of Indiana
In a Title VII suit by former employees against a state lottery, denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity is affirmed where the lottery was not a state entity immune from suit.

[10/06] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Lee's Log Cabin, Inc.
In an action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's alteration at the summary judgment stage of its claim to name AIDS, rather than HIV, as the basis for the claim, was too late to give defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim; 2) evidence regarding the effect of AIDS on complainant's life activities was therefore properly excluded; and 3) complainant was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA because she indicated she had a lifting restriction which could not have been accommodated by defendant.

[09/29] Wachovia Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Toomey
Upon certified questions from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case arising from the termination of two employment contracts, the court answers that: 1) a settlement agreement between two parties that explicitly contains both an assignment of causes of action against a third party insurer and an immediate release of the insured on the same causes of action is valid; 2) the claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the relationship between the insurance broker and the insured involving allegations of failure to provide insurance coverage was also assignable as it is analogous to a cause of action for bad faith; and 3) the claim for negligent failure to procure insurance coverage should not have been dismissed as a matter of law, was assignable, and should have been submitted to the jury.
More...