California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

In an action brought by a professional model for the misappropriation of his likeness by defendant-Nestle, a court of appeal ruling reversing a trial court jury award of over $15 million is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court erroneously ruled that the single-publication rule does not apply to claims for appropriation of likeness; but 2) the court of appeals erred to the extent that it held that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, plaintiff's cause of action necessarily accrued when Nestle first "published" the label pursuant to the rule of Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (2003).

Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. S155242 in HTML

Christoff v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. S155242 in PDF

Appellate Information
APPEAL from Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC036163.

Filed August 17, 2009

Judges
Before: George, C.J., Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Corrigan, J., Moreno, J.
Opinion by Moreno, J.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Law Offices of Colin C. Claxon, Colin C. Claxon; Mayer & Glassman Law Corporation, Robert David Mayer; Kibre & Horwitz, Eric G. Stockel; and David J. Franklyn.

Duncan W. Crabtree-Ireland and Danielle S. Van Lier for Screen Actors Guild, Inc., as Amicus Curiae

Reich, Adell & Cvitan, Laurence S. Zakson and William Y. Sheh for American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO, as Amicus Curie.

For Defendant: Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Jeremy B. Rosen, John A. Taylor, Jr.; Heller & Edwards, Lawrence E. Heller and Shula R. Barash.

Davis Wright Tremaine, Kelli L. Sager, Rochelle L. Wilcox, Kevin L. Vick; Karlene Goller; Jonathan Donellan; Hallie Michelena; David Tomlin, Laura Malone; Thomas W. Newton; Peter Scheer; Lucy Dalglish and Gregg Leslie for Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, The Hearst Corporation, Viacom, Inc., The Associated Press, The California Newspaper Publishers Association, The California First Amendment Coalition, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies as Amici Curiae.

Loeb & Loeb, Douglas E. Mirell and W. Allan Edmiston for Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.  

In an action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, trial court judgment for defendant is reversed where the court erred in finding that the general specifications document was not part of the written license agreement between the parties, as the undisputed extrinsic evidence shows that the document was one set of specifications that plaintiff provided to defendant pursuant to their arrangement, and thus defendant was bound by the terms in the document.    

Read DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., No. H031631 in PDF

Read DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., No. H031631 in HTML

Appellate Information
APPEAL from Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV031829.
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed August 12, 2009

Judges
Before Premo, J., Elia, J., RUSHING, P.J.
Opinion by Premo, J.
Concurring Opinion by RUSHING, P.J.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld, Edward Peter Lazarus, Michael C. Small, L. Rachel Helyar; White & Case, William S. Coats, Heidi L. Keefe, Mark R. Weinstein, Mark F. Lambert.

For Defendant: Law Offices of Richard R. Wiebe, Richard R. Wiebe; Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, Keith L. Slenkovich, Tomomi Harkey; The Moore Law Group, Thomas E. Moore III, Nicole V. Economou.

In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, trial court orders are affirmed where: 1) the court properly granted plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion as plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating the acts underlying the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and defendant failed to show a probability of prevailing on the cross-claim; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of attorney's fees awarded as the fees incurred were reasonable and not manifestly excessive.    

Read Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, No. G040902 in PDF

Read Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea, No. G040902 in HTML

Appellate Information
Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Corey S. Cramin, Judge. Affirmed.
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
Filed June 29, 2009
Published July 21, 2009

Judges
Before FYBEL, J., BEDSWORTH, ACTING P.J., ARONSON, J.
Opinion by FYBEL, J.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Ulrico S. Rosales and Michael J. Nader.
For Defendant: The Walker Law Firm, Joseph A. Walker and Jason Matthew Lamb.