Irell & Manella LLP litigators frequently handle appeals and writs in the appellate courts.  Our appellate practice group specializes in appellate matters. 

Recent appellate published decisions include:

Jakks Pacific, Inc. v. Superior Court; THQ Inc., Real Party in Interest, 160 Cal. App. 4th 596 (2008).  Steve Marenberg, Charles Elder, and David Ryan.  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).  Steve Marenberg and Perry Goldberg.  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).  Gregory Smith, Marc Maister, Garland Kelley, and Regine Rutherfurd.  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.

Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Associates, 502 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2007).  Richard Kendall and Robert Klieger.  We successfully represented the appellees in confirming the arbitrability of claims and enforceability of a covenant restricting competition in a trademark license agreement.  We also handled the matter in arbitration and in the trial court.

Hollywood Screentest of America v. NBC Universal, 151 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2007).  Bruce Wessel and David Ryan.  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).  Greg Smith, Tom Pollack, and Mark Paluch.  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).  Laura Seigle.  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).  Richard Kendall and Melissa McCormick.  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 amicus briefs include:

Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007).  David Siegel and Laura Brill.  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.

City of Los Angeles v. Metro Lights LLC, (9th Cir. 2007).  Laura Brill and Richard Simon.  We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the League of California Cities and CBS Decaux LLC in a First Amendment case concerning outdoor advertising.

eBay v. MercExchange, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).  Morgan Chu, Laura Brill, Jason Sheasby, and Richard Simon.  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.

In re Marriage Cases, 143 Cal. App. 4th 873 (2006).  Laura Brill and Elizabeth Rosenblatt.  We represented several women’s rights organizations in an amicus brief arguing that California’s laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman constitutes sex discrimination.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court matters include:

MedImmune v. Genentech, 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007).  Joseph Lipner and Laura Brill.  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.

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005).  Laura Brill, Alan Heinrich, Katherine Kraus, and Peter Shimamoto.  This case, which we handled pro bono, addressed whether the U.S. government may prosecute a U.S. citizen for wire fraud based on allegations of a scheme to avoid paying foreign taxes.  The case led to our client’s sentence being vacated and the sentences of other defendants being significantly reduced.

Recent Federal Circuit matters include:

Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation v. Texas Instruments, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2008). Gary Frischling, Joseph Lipner, Brian Ledahl, Keith Orso, and Alexander Karpman. 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.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., et al., ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2008).  Morgan Chu, Laura Brill, Andrei Iancu, and Alex Giza.  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.

IpVenture v. ProStar Computer,  503 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Morgan Chu and Richard Birnholz.  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. 2007).  Morgan Chu and Jonathan Kagan.  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).  Morgan Chu, Perry Goldberg, and Christine Byrd.  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).  Morgan Chu, Jonathan Steinberg, and Andrei Iancu.  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). Morgan Chu, Gregory Smith, David Gindler, and Joseph Lipner. 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 in the California courts. 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).  Steven Marenberg, Gregory Smith, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, and Philip Kelly.  This landmark case involved the scope of the attorney-client privilege in California and whether the privilege survives the death of the client.

For more information, please contact Gregory Smith, Joseph Lipner, or Laura Brill.