Frontier Insurance Group, Inc. v. Ernst & Young LLP
In a jury trial in the Southern District of New York, Morrison & Foerster successfully defended Ernst & Young (“E&Y”) in an actuarial malpractice case. The case stemmed from the decision by the New York State Department of Insurance to place Frontier Insurance Company (“FIC”) in rehabilitation. FIC’s parent claimed it relied on Ernst & Young's assessment of the company’s reserve estimates in deciding to make capital contributions to its primary operating subsidiary, and wanted to recoup those investments from E&Y, seeking in excess of $200 million. After 12 trial days in November/December 2009, the jury weighed the evidence and concluded that there was no negligence. This was the first significant actuarial malpractice case to go to trial since PricewaterhouseCoopers’s defense in the Ambassador litigation, and a significant victory for E&Y, which often faces these types of lawsuits.
|
SCO Group v. Novell
(District of Utah, Tenth Circuit). Prevailed in three-week jury trial in Salt Lake City against SCO’s “slander of title” claims involving the UNIX and Linux operating systems when a jury determined that Novell owned the UNIX copyrights. (2010) In an earlier bench trial, won multi-million dollar award for Novell based on its right to royalty payments from UNIX software licenses granted by SCO. (2008) Successfully defended verdicts in 10th Circuit appeal. (2011)
|
SP Syntax LLC v. Ernst & Young LLP, et al.
Following a three-week trial in California Superior Court, won a unanimous jury verdict on behalf of Ernst & Young (EY), defeating claims that the accounting firm had made negligent representations in connection with financial statements issued by Syntax-Brillian, a manufacturer of flat-screen televisions that filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Silver Point, a hedge fund, sought $50 million that it wasn't able to recover from Syntax-Brillian's bankruptcy proceedings, alleging that a $130 million loan it had extended to Syntax-Brillian would not have occurred but for alleged misrepresentations in EY's audit of the company. The jury, by a 12-0 vote, concluded that Ernst & Young had made no misrepresentations of any kind. (2010)
|
Technology Integrated Group v. FusionStorm
Won a $10.8 million jury verdict and successfully defended all counterclaims in 2010. After a five-week trial involving the value-added reseller industry, a jury found that multiple defendants had violated their duty of care to their former employer and willfully misappropriated three trade secrets. The jury also found that the new employer aided, abetted, and ratified those acts, and awarded punitive damages against plaintiff’s former manager, the new employer, and three of its officers.
|
Hansen Medical v. Luna Innovations Inc.
Won a $36.3 million victory for Hansen Medical Inc. in 2009. After a four-week trial involving medical robotics, a jury found that the defendant had willfully misappropriated trade secrets and breached two contracts.
|
Echostar Communications Corporation
We obtained a defense jury verdict for EchoStar in a patent lawsuit brought by Forgent Networks Inc. against essentially the entire cable and satellite television industry, including EchoStar, DIRECTV, Comcast, Cable One, Time Warner, Charter, and Cox, as well as Motorola, Digeo, and Scientific-Atlanta, in Tyler, Texas. The case involved patents allegedly directed to DVRs. Forgent alleged that it invented the DVR in 1991. All defendants other than EchoStar settled shortly before trial, leaving EchoStar as the sole defendant. In May 2007, after approximately an hour of deliberations, an eight-person jury found all of the asserted claims invalid as anticipated, obvious, and lacking an adequate written description. EchoStar did not contest infringement at trial and argued only invalidity. We believe this is only the second defense jury verdict in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
|
Bayer
In August 2005, plaintiff Abbott Labs filed suit in the Northern District of California against Bayer and Roche, two of the leading manufacturers of blood glucose meters and strips, asserting infringement of two of plaintiff's patents. After our client Bayer won summary judgment on one of the patents, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who consolidated it for trial with a related set of cases involving Becton-Dickinson and set a trial date within six weeks on the second patent. The court broke the trial into three phases. Roche settled before trial. After a six-day bench trial in June 2008, in a 54-page opinion, the court found in Bayer's favor on all claims. The court invalidated every asserted claim as obvious, and also found the patent unenforceable because two Abbott employees concealed material information from the Patent Office during prosecution. Bayer has now prevailed on both patents and all asserted claims.
|
JDS Uniphase
After a four-week jury trial in the Northern District of California, we won a defense verdict on behalf of JDSU and three former executives on all claims in a class action alleging securities fraud and insider trading. Plaintiffs had sought damages of approximately $20 billion, one of the largest damages claims ever presented at trial in the United States.
|
Pioneer Corporation
In Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas), we represented Pioneer and its affiliates in two patent disputes with Samsung involving plasma display panel (“PDP”) technology. Pioneer and Samsung are two of the largest manufacturers of plasma display panels. Pioneer is the plaintiff in both disputes, one of which is a declaratory judgment action. In September 2006, Pioneer filed an action against Samsung and its affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of two of Pioneer's patents. Samsung SDI then filed counterclaims, asserting that Pioneer and its affiliates infringed Samsung's PDP patents. On October 28, 2008, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas decided that three Samsung entities had willfully infringed the patents in suit and awarded Pioneer $59.3 million in compensatory damages. The case has since settled.
|
Defense Verdict in an Employment Trial
Obtained a defense verdict for our client in a 3-week trial in San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiff claimed our client had caused him to suffer economic and non-economic damages and sought an award of $13 million, not including punitive damages. The jury took a little more than one hour to deliberate and found in favor of our client on all claims.
|
Morris v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
Won our preemptive motion to strike class allegations in a putative class action on behalf of current and former store cashiers alleging failure to provide suitable seating for the cashiers. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed her case against our client Ralphs Grocery Company.
|
Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (Court of Appeal, Third and Fifth Appellate Districts.)
Secured two appellate court wins for Ralphs Grocery Company. The cases stem from an attempt in January 2008 by Ralphs to implement rules restricting the time, place, and manner of so-called “expressive activities” outside its nonunion Foods Co. warehouse stores — rules that were ignored by union picketers. In the Sacramento and Fresno Superior Courts, Ralphs challenged the constitutionality of California’s 1975 Moscone Act, which deprives state courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against peaceful picketing or patrolling involving any labor dispute. The lawsuits also challenged Labor Code Section 1131.8, which independently imposes severe restrictions on a property owner's right to obtain injunctive relief against unions. On Ralphs’ appeals from orders denying injunctive relief, the Third and Fifth Appellate Districts both held that the statutes violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, were invalid. Both cases are presently pending before the California Supreme Court.
|
Independent Contractor Misclassification Trial Victory
Won a bench trial in which the plaintiff, a local pick-up and delivery driver, challenged his status as an independent contractor, arguing that he was in fact a common law employee despite the parties’ agreement to the contrary. The court found in favor of our client on all causes of action, holding that the plaintiff was an independent contractor in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Decision was affirmed on appeal.
|
SCO Group v. Novell
(District of Utah, Tenth Circuit). Prevailed in three-week jury trial in Salt Lake City against SCO’s “slander of title” claims involving the UNIX and Linux operating systems when a jury determined that Novell owned the UNIX copyrights. (2010) In an earlier bench trial, won multi-million dollar award for Novell based on its right to royalty payments from UNIX software licenses granted by SCO. (2008)
|