Source: https://www.lalitigationlawyers.com/published-decisions.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:05:26+00:00

Document:
Many of the cases handled by the Senior Litigation Partners and Counsel at Mark Anchor Albert and Associates have resulted in important published decisions which other courts, treatises and commentators often have cited in other cases. A partial listing of these cases, with a link to them in PDF format, is set forth below.
Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) (complex patent claim construction).
Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (Defendants' alleged transfer of the technology out of the hands of plaintiff and into the exclusive control of other defendants even if violative of the provisions of the license agreement, did not result in higher prices or decreased output for the consuming public. As such, plaintiff failed to allege any cognizable antitrust injury).
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (historic peer-to-peer file-sharing litigation).
Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Techs., S.A., CV 06-391 FMC (Ex), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97393 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (antitrust complaint dismissed).
Transamerica Fin. Life Ins. Co. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 302 B.R. 620 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (granting motion to remand complaint because recovery for plaintiffs would not directly affect Enron's bankruptcy estate, Enron was not named as a defendant, the instant proceeding therefore was within "related to" subject matter jurisdiction).
AUSA Life Ins. Co. v. Citigroup, Inc., 293 B.R. 471 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (remanding Enron-related securities fraud complaint).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. App. 4th 434 (2003) (in a national class action by policyholders against an insurance company, the law of the state where the company was incorporated was to be applied to actions on its internal decisions, and but dismissal of the action was not appropriate; the action could properly proceed in California state court).
In re Brown, 17 Cal. 4th 873 (1998) (habeas corpus relief was granted to defendant, who was convicted of capital murder, where the prosecution failed to disclose a positive drug test in defendant's blood sample, which would have aided his defense of diminished capacity).
Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (2008) (in an action against a mutual insurance company for dividends, policyholders were not entitled to an accounting in part because a claim for breach of contract was precluded by the business judgment rule. The board of directors could rely on information from management and the company's actuarial department in fulfilling duty to consider dividends).
In re Acacia Media Techs. Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37009 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2005) (patent holder claiming that various internet-based adult entertainment providers infringed its patents succeeded in dismissing counterclaim for abuse of process because the patent holder's initiation of a lawsuit could not form the basis of an abuse of process counterclaim. The patent holder's other lawsuits against other defendants could not form the basis of the company's abuse of process counterclaim. because they were too remote. Patent holder's alleged misstatements to the media did not abuse the judicial process.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.