Patent, Copyright, Trademark, & Trade Secrets
AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc. & Crown Biosciences, Inc. , case No. 11 CV 0107 (S.D. Cal.). In this patent infringement case, LiLaw successfully defended Crown Biosciences, Inc., a biomedical contract research organization (CRO) headquartered in Santa Clara, California. Plaintiff AntiCancer alleged in the suit that Crown infringed a U.S. patent on rodent animal models used for biomedical researches based on a cancer research project that Crown conducted for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc., who was a co-defendant. Crown initially filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading, based on the fact that Crown’s research was conducted in China and outside the jurisdictional limit of the U.S. patent law. Judge Sammartino of the United States District Court, Southern District of California, granted the motion, but with leave to amend. On the same time, the district court also granted Pfizer’s motion for summary judgment based on procedural defects of AntiCancer’s infringement contentions. AntiCancer appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Circuit court reversed and sent the case back to the district court. Crown then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the same ground as its previously successful Motion for Judgment on the Pleading, i.e., the research at issue was conducted in China. AntiCancer then decided that it could not overcome the Motion for Summary Judgment and voluntarily dismissed the case against Crown.
Design Data Corporation v. Unigate Enterprise, Inc. , Case No. CV-12-4131-WHO (N.D. Cal.). In this copyright infringement case, LiLaw Inc. took over the case in October 2013 for defendant Unigate Enterprise, Inc. and related co-defendants (collectively “Unigate”) and successfully dismissed case through a motion for summary judgment. Unigate is in the business of helping clients generate steel detailing drawings for construction projects, by using various independent contract detailers. One of Unigate’s independent contractors based in China might have used an unauthorized copy of Plaintiff Design Data Corporation’s software SDS/2, without Unigate’s knowledge. Unigate also once downloaded a free “demo” copy of SDS/2, but had never installed or used it. Upon taking over the case, LiLaw filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Unigate. Although plaintiff successfully delayed the resolution of the motion for several months, eventually Judge Orrick of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted Unigate’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Unigate also defeated plaintiff’s attempt to amend the complaint at the eleventh hour. The plaintiff has appealed the decisions. The appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit.
ACRO Biosystems Co. Ltd. v. ACROBiosystems USA, LLC , Opp. No. 91212675 (TTAB). In this trademark opposition proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), United States Patent and Trademark Office, LiLaw successfully prevented a usurper from registering the trademark ACRO BIOSYSTEM which belongs to LiLaw’s client ACRO Biosystems Co. Ltd.(“ACRO”). ACRO’s former distributor and subsidiary ACROBiosystems USA LLC applied for the federal registration of the trademark. When the application was allowed and published for public review, LiLaw filed an opposition proceeding to oppose the registration before the TTAB. During the proceeding, LiLaw filed a successful motion to compel deposition and proper responses to written discovery requests. Eventually, LiLaw filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of ACRO. The Board granted ACRO’s motion for summary judgment, which prevented the usurpation of the mark by attempted registration of the mark.
Highgrade Tech. Co., Ltd. v. OSD Audio, Amazon.com et al. , Case No. 3:13-cv-01881 (N.D. Cal.). In this patent infringement case, LiLaw defended OSD Audio. Highgrade claims that OSD sold television and computer display mounts that infringed Highgrade’s utility and design patents. The case settled favorably for OSD.
Epic Communications, Inc. and EpicCom, Inc. v. ALi Corporation , Case No. 50494T0043807(AAA). In this trade secret misappropriation case arising from a technology partnership agreement, Dr. Li was the lead counsel for Epic Communications in an arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association (AAA). After a 7-day trial and one additional day of hearing the arbitration panel found ALi had misappropriated Epic’s trade secrets. The panel awarded compensatory damages to Epic and ordered ALi to pay attorney fees for bad-faith litigation conduct.
Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology Inc. , Case No. H032378 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal). Dr. Li acted as the lead counsel for Epic Communications in this case arising from a trade secret misappropriation claim before California Court of Appeal, the Sixth Appellate District. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court (California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara) erred in granting a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction on Richwave, a Taiwanese company. After the oral argument, the court reversed the trial court’s order in full and the opinion is published in the official reporter, 179 Cal. App. 4th 314 (2009).
Advante International Corp. v. Mintel Learning Technology, Inc. , Case No. C05-01022 (N.D. Cal). Dr. Li was the lead counsel for Mintel in this action involving the source code for an online learning technology, including claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, commercial libel, copyright infringement, and unfair competition. The court granted Mintel’s request to inspect Advante’s hard drives and eventually sanctioned Advante for various litigation misconducts, by ordering Advante to pay fees and cost associated with Mintel’s motion to compel and hard drive inspection. The case settled favorably for Mintel before trial. Later, LiLaw represented Mintel to enforce the settlement agreement before California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV224450.
Contract, Employment and Business Torts
Beijing Tong Ren Tang (USA) Corp. v. TRT USA Corp., Case No. 5:09-CV-00882 (N.D. Cal.). LiLaw successfully represented Defendant and Counter-claimant TRT USA Corp. in this contract, business torts, and intellectual property dispute. TRT USA was the U.S. exclusive distributor of Beijing Tong Ren Tang. The case arose from the parties’ exclusive distribution agreement. Beijing Tong Ren Tang’s U.S. subsidiary first sued TRT USA for false advertisement, false designation of origin, trademark infringement and unfair competition. TRT USA countersued for fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation. After a jury trial before Judge Ronald Whyte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which lasted more than a month, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of TRT USA. The jury rejected all the claims against TRT USA and also awarded TRT USA compensatory and punitive damages on its counterclaims. While the case was pending on appeal, the parties settled.
EnReach Technology, Inc. v. Embedded Internet Solutions, Case No. C04-1255 (N. D. Cal). Dr. Li acted as the lead counsel for EnReach in the case for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of source code, and unfair competition. The case involved a former officer of EnReach who formed his own company selling competing software products. After extended litigation, the case settled favorably for EnReach.
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Inc. , Case No. 1-09-CV-151270 (Cal. Supr. Ct., Santa Clara). LiLaw successfully defended Orient Semiconductor Electronics, Inc. (“OSEI”) in this supplier contract and indemnification case before California Superior Court for County of Santa Clara. OSEI filed a motion to quash the service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court granted the motion to quash, which ended the case for OSEI.
Peng v. GEM Services Inc. , Case No. CV12-00574 (N.D. Cal.). In this case for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy, LiLaw represented plaintiff Peng. The case was initially filed in California Superior Court, and was removed to the federal court by Defendants. The parties settled pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
Yamoah v. Regents of University of California, Case No. CV140913 (Cal. Supr. Ct., Yolo). In this case for employment discrimination, LiLaw represents a former professor of University of California. The case is currently pending before California Superior Court for the County of Yolo.
Dubrovsky v. Micropoint Biosciences, Inc. In this employment dispute under the claim for wrongful termination, LiLaw represented the employer Micropoint. The dispute settled in a confidential settlement, without ever being filed.
The results portrayed here were dependent on the facts of the individual cases and the results will differ if based on different facts. For more information, please contact Dr. Li at 888-842-0851.