California Business Litigation Blog

MercExchange filed a lawsuit against online auction giant eBay in 2001 claiming eBay’s “Buy It Now” infringed on MercExchange patents and technology. In 2003 a jury awarded MercExchange $35 million in damages. The judge reduced the jury award to… $25 million. A federal judge certified the penalty and eBay threatened appeal.

During the above proceedings MercExchange tried to block eBay’s use of “Buy It Now”. In 2006 the Supreme Court made a landmark decision to allow eBay to continue use of “Buy It Now”. Before this ruling patent owners were virtually always granted court orders to block infringements. These actions to block use typically lead to faster more lucrative settlements for the patent owners.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in eBay’s favor, judges throughout the US have denied requests for court orders to block use where the infringer was not a competitor of the patent owner.

Financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed by either party. EBay said it would buy three patents from MercExchange related to “Buy It Now”/fixed priced sales as well as related technology. EBay General Counsel Mike Jacobson stated “The agreement gives us access to additional intellectual property that will help improve and further secure our marketplaces.''

This Supreme Court decision adds a new aspect to the trend written about previously on this blog whereby infringers are strategically using the court system to buy intellectual properties and/or licenses to use intellectual properties.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Intellectual Property

Bookmark:

In 2003 twelve San Francisco Police Officers sued the Police Department alleging that black officers were being favored for promotions to lieutenant. While the city admitted no wrongdoing, a settlement was reached 2 years ago. The settlement was delayed by the City’s approval process and decisions about how to split the proceeds among the plaintiffs.

From 1999 to 2003 thirty-nine lieutenant promotions were made after testing. The suit claimed that 5 black officers were promoted to lieutenant while better qualified officers had been passed over.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs - nine white officers, two Latinos and an Asian American – claimed that such results were statistically impossible without preferential treatment.

San Francisco Police officials have said that race was not a factor in the questioned promotions, all of which were made under acting Chief Alex Fagan who is no longer with the department.

After attorneys fees, one officer will receive $200,000, eight will receive $100,000 each and three will receive $50,000 each.

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera said “This settlement puts to rest old challenges to a series of old promotions under an old administration."

This case in not unique. In Jacksonville Florida four lieutenants in the Fire Department claimed their promotions to Captain were blocked by Fire Chief Ray Alfred. A jury sided with the firefighters and awarded $220,000.

Last year, New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan resigned after a judge found his office liable for $3.7 Million in a reverse discrimination lawsuit. Jordan was accused of firing 35 white employees and hiring black employees to replace them.

Continue reading "San Francisco Police Department Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $1.6 Million" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

Most of us have seen the LifeLock advertisement in which company CEO Todd Davis reveals his Social Security number and then speaks about the effectiveness of the company’s protections. Experian’s lawsuit claims that LifeLock’s ads are fraudulent and misleading. Experian also claims that LifeLock’s primary means of protecting its 600,000 clients is filing a fraud alert every 90 days for each LifeLock client.

A fraud alert is a notice/flag put on your credit report through the consumer reporting agencies. This flag establishes that as part of any credit approval process, you need to be notified.

Experian claims LifeLock’s practice of filing fraud alerts on behalf of clients is illegal because, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, “fraud alerts can only be requested by the individual consumer or an individual acting on behalf of the consumer."

Further the lawsuit claims, adding four alerts per year for 600,000 LifeLock members to Experian’s database will degrade the effectiveness of legitimate fraud alerts over time. Credit grantors could lose the ability to distinguish between fraud alerts added by consumers who legitimately believe that identity theft is imminent and those added by LifeLock. The complaint alleges that credit grantors will have reason to doubt the credibility of all fraud alerts and their effectiveness for consumers legitimately impacted by fraud and identity theft will be severely compromised.

The complaint against LifeLock was filed by Experian in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , False Advertising , Internet

Bookmark:

Allianz Life Insurance Co. is reportedly the largest seller of annuities in California. According to the Department of Insurance, Allianz allegedly used deceptive sales tactics to mislead thousands of elderly people into purchasing unstable and/or unsuitable annuities. Many of those mislead were over 80 years old!

An annuity is a contract between a person and a financial institution (insurer) in which the person makes at least one payment and in turn receives "tax-deferred growth of earnings" back from the insurer.

California Department of Insurance officials conducted an examination into Alliance which revealed that in 2004/2005 Allianz replaced 126 existing annuities with financially unsuitable annuities for elderly clients.

In addition to the $10 Million penalty, Allianz agreed to implement a “suitability review” for customers over 65 to insure they are “fully aware of the products they are purchasing."

California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner stated “This landmark settlement ends years of aggressive and misleading marketing schemes targeted to our most elderly and vulnerable. The fact that Allianz used deceptive practices and high-pressure sales tactics to lure and cajole seniors into buying unsuitable policies is appalling. However, today's settlement represents a real change for the industry and is a tremendous victory for all California seniors."

Anyone with questions regarding insurance matters can contact the California Department of Insurance consumer hot line at (800) 927-HELP or visit http://www.insurance.ca.gov.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Contract Litigation , False Advertising

Bookmark: