MENU

Appellate

Print PDF

Irell & Manella's Appellate practice is comprised of litigators in the firm's Los Angeles and Newport Beach offices. The Group frequently handles appeals and writs in the appellate courts. Our expertise in such matters was recently expanded with the addition of former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, Carlos Moreno, who joined the firm in March 2011.  During his decade on the California Supreme Court, Justice Moreno authored 144 majority opinions and made important judicial contributions in many areas of the law, including arbitration, class action, and custody matters involving same sex couples.  Prior to being elevated to the California Supreme Court, Justice Moreno served on the  United States District Court for the Central District of California and before that, on the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Justice Moreno's experience gives our attorneys and clients a unique perspective on how trial courts render decisions and are analyzed on appeal.

Recent appellate decisions include:

Primate Freedom Project, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., 331 Fed. Appx. 716, 2009 WL 2634041 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2009).  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a dismissal in favor of Irell’s client, The Regents of the University of California.  Irell represented the University in an action in which the Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief for claims brought under the First Amendment and the free speech provisions of the Georgia Constitution. 

NRDC v. Winter, 543 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit affirmed plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and declined to reduce the fee award on the basis of purportedly limited success. The Ninth Circuit found that plaintiffs had achieved "excellent results" under EAJA by obtaining a TRO and forcing a settlement that included measures designed to protect the environment that had not previously been implemented in certain naval training exercises.  

Monrovia Nursery Company, Inc. v. Rosedale, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 7876 (Cal. App. September 24, 2008).  The California Court of Appeal affirmed the declaratory judgment in favor of Irell's client in a dispute with its majority shareholder over the interpretation of a corporate agreement.  It also affirmed the lower court's award of more than $750,000 in Irell's attorneys' fees.

Jakks Pacific, Inc. v. Superior Court; THQ Inc., Real Party in Interest, 160 Cal. App. 4th 596 (2008).  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling -- and our client's position -- that arbitrators need not disclose potential conflicts until they are actually selected, as opposed to when they are first nominated by the parties or by the court.  This was the first time that the Court of Appeal had interpreted the arbitrator disclosure rules under the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Tucker, et al. v. Interscope Records, et al., 515 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2008).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed our summary judgment victory in a malicious prosecution action filed against our clients, a record company and a law firm.  The Ninth Circuit agreed that there was no evidence from which a jury could find malice, a necessary element of the malicious prosecution claim.

Ortiz v. Lyon Management Group, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 604 (2007).  In a case of first impression, our summary judgment victory was affirmed, the court holding that California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act was unconstitutionally vague as applied to tenant screening reports containing unlawful detainer information.  We also handled the matter in the trial court.

Hollywood Screentest of America v. NBC Universal, 151 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2007). In the first published decision in more than twenty years concerning the "independent creation" defense to idea submission claims, our summary judgment victory was affirmed – the first time a California court has ever affirmed summary judgment in an idea theft case on independent creation grounds.

Armenta v. Mueller Co., 142 Cal. App. 4th 636 (2006).  We successfully represented the appellant and persuaded the California Court of Appeal to reinstate state qui tam claims, which the trial court had dismissed.  The case involves claims by California cities against water pipe manufacturers.

Sander/Moses Productions v. NBC Studios, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1086 (2006).  We successfully represented the appellee before the California Court of Appeal and obtained an affirmance of a defense verdict in one of the few television profit participation cases tried in the California courts.  We also handled this matter in the trial court.

Huynh v. Chase Manhattan, 465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006).  We successfully represented the appellee in a case that involved "heretofore unaddressed choice of law and statutes of limitations issues."  The case involved claims against a bank relating to deposits that were lost during the Vietnam War.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court matters include:

Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010).  Irell & Manella acted as co-counsel for Reed Elsevier, petitioner for review of an adverse judgment in In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, 509 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2007) in which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the formality of registration with the United States Copyright Office is a jurisdictional pre-requisite for any federal litigation to proceed.  On appeal, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed. 

MedImmune v. Genentech, 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007).  We represented respondent City of Hope in this case addressing whether a patent licensee has Article III standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to have the patent it licensed declared invalid.

Recent Federal Circuit matters include:

Spansion, Inc. v. ITC, 629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  Irell & Manella was co-counsel for Tessera in an appeal from a patent enforcement investigation before the United States International Trade Commission in which the Commission found Tessera's patents valid and infringed by several major players in the semiconductor industry. Irell successfully defeated motions for an emergency stay of the ITC’s exclusion orders, a normal stay pending appeal, and for reconsideration and en banc review of the same.  In Dec. 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal affirmed the ITC's decision.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications, et al., No. 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir.).  Irell & Manella is co-counsel in an en banc proceeding involving the standard for injunction enforcement proceedings.  In 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed our trial victory for TiVo, including injunctive relief and an award of damages exceeding $90 million, in a patent infringement case regarding digital video recorders.  The Federal Circuit also instructed the district court to consider awarding additional damages incurred during appeal.  In June 2009, the district court once again found for TiVo and held EchoStar in contempt of the 2006 injunction and entered an order requiring EchoStar to pay additional damages and sanctions totaling approximately $200 million, bringing the total amount of money awarded to TiVo to more than $400 million.  On March 4, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s contempt findings against EchoStar. The Federal Circuit then granted en banc review, making this one of the highest profile patent cases in the country.

Peer Communications Corp. v. Skype, Inc., et al., No. 2009-1069 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2009).  The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Irell & Manella’s client, Skype.  Irell & Manella successfully defended Skype against a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Peer Communications Corp., a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. 

Netcraft v. eBay, 549 F.3d 1394. (Fed. Cir. 2008).  The Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent lawsuit filed against our clients, eBay and PayPal, relating to on-line payment systems.  We also handled this matter in the district court.

Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367. (Fed. Cir. 2008).  The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of our client, Texas Instruments.  MEC had sought over $94 million in damages and a permanent injunction against TI's line of C6000 processors.  The Federal Circuit ruled that Texas Instrument's processors did not infringe any claim of the asserted patent.

IpVenture v. ProStar Computer, 503 F.3d 1324. (Fed. Cir. 2007).  We represented the appellant IpVenture.  The District Court dismissed IpVenture's patent infringement suit without prejudice ruling that IpVenture was not the sole owner of the patent-in-suit and hence lacked standing.  The Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal and reinstated the case.  In a published opinion, the Court ruled that the former employer of one of the inventors had no assignment of the invention and that IpVenture owned the entire interest in the patent.

Ultratech, Inc. v. ASM Lithography, Appeal No. 2006-1298. (Fed. Cir. 2006).  Irell represented ASML in a patent suit relating to optical photolithography.  Following a jury verdict invalidating the patent asserted against our client on numerous bases, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment on all grounds. 

In re Echostar Communications, 448 F.3d 1294. (Fed. Cir. 2006).  We represented TiVo in connection with a writ of mandamus regarding discovery of information claimed to be work product or attorney-client privileged when the defendant asserts an advice-of-counsel defense to a charge of willful patent infringement.  The Federal Circuit ruled in our favor on virtually all of the discovery issues raised in the case.

Grayzel v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Appeal No. 2005-1126. (Fed. Cir. 2005).  We represented St. Jude Medical in a patent infringement suit related to vascular closure devices.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on summary judgment, invalidating all of the asserted claims and dismissing the case in St. Jude's favor. 

Recent California Supreme Court matters include:

City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc., 43 Cal. 4th 375 (2008).  The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld a $300 million jury verdict for breach of contract in favor of City of Hope National Medical Center, the largest damage award ever affirmed on appeal by California courts in any area of law. More than $565 million was paid by the defendant to City of Hope. The case concerned City of Hope's right to receive royalties from Genentech relating to a fundamental invention by City of Hope scientists in the 1970's at the dawn of the biotechnology industry. The Supreme Court's opinion explored the role that a jury may play in interpreting contract language and affirmed the trial court's decision to allow the jury to interpret the contract between City of Hope and Genentech.

HLC Properties, Ltd. v. MCA Records, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 54 (2005).  This landmark case involved the scope of the attorney-client privilege in California and whether the privilege survives the death of the client.

Recent Delaware Supreme Court matters include:

JAKKS Pacific, Inc. v. THQ/JAKKS Pacific LLC and THQ Inc., 979 A.2d 1111 (Del. Sept. 11, 2009).  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Chancery Court's judgment for THQ, holding that there was no proper purpose for JAKKS' "sweeping" demand for documents in connection with a royalty dispute. 

Recent amicus briefs include:

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al., U.S. S. Ct. No. 10-290 (2011).  Irell & Manella filed an amicus brief on behalf of Tessera, Inc., Luminex Corporation, and the National Small Business Association, opposing a change to the legal requirement that a litigant must prove patent invalidity by "clear and convincing" evidence.  The brief argued that the innovation and licensing industries have thrived in reliance on the more predictable patent enforceability enabled by the "clear and convincing" standard, and lowering the standard would upset settled expectations and negatively affect the economy.

Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, U.S. S. Ct. No. 08-1448 (2010).  Irell & Manella filed an amicus brief on behalf of Rhode Island, Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington supporting a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s law seeking to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors. The brief argued that the law violated the First Amendment and would hinder, rather than help, law enforcement efforts.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), We filed an amicus brief on behalf of Amici Concerned with Gender Equality: Equal Rights Advocates, California Women’s Law Center, Women Lawyers of Santa Cruz County, Lawyers Club of San Diego, Legal Momentum and National Association of Women Lawyers, in support of petitioners to overturn Proposition 8.

Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007).  We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and securities industry groups in civil litigation arising out of the collapse of Enron.

eBay v. MercExchange, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).  We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Association of Universities and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges in this case addressing the standard for issuance of injunctions in patent infringement cases.