Published Decisions

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).
    Download the PDF

  • Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19314 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) (complex patent claim construction)
    Download the PDF

  • Acacia Media Techs. Corp. v. New Destiny Internet et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93710 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2006) (complicated claim construction of patent terms involving electronic transmission and receipt of data)
    Download the PDF

  • Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Technologies, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97392 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (motion to dismiss antitrust claims granted with prejudice regarding P2P streaming claims)
    Download the PDF

  • Streamcast Networks, Inc. v. Skype Technologies, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97391 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) (order dismissing with prejudice complex conversion, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy claims relating to internet file sharing technologies)
    Download the PDF

  • People v. Demery, 104 Cal. App. 3d 548 (1980) (statute prohibited unauthorized prescriptions deemed constitutional)
    Download the PDF

  • People v. Lewis, 20 Cal. 3d 496 (1978) (criminal defendants are entitled to explain the reasons why they wanted to discharge court-appointed attorneys, and refusal to permit them to do so is error)
    Download the PDF

  • Robinson v. Superior Court, 76 Cal. App. 3d 968 (1978) (Defendant was entitled to all statements made by witnesses that the state intended to call to testify at his trial, including statements given to opposing counsel, because the work product privilege does not apply in criminal prosecutions)
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (historic peer-to-peer file-sharing litigation).
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 4th 490 (2004) (trial court properly denied defendant's motion to disqualify trial judge; trial court's decision regarding conflict of laws issue did not constitute a "trial" and the granting of defendant's prior writ petition would not result in a "new trial.")
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • AUSA Life Ins. Co. v. Citigroup, Inc., 293 B.R. 471 (N.D. Iowa 2003) (remanding Enron-related securities fraud complaint).
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • Henry v. Alcove Inv., 233 Cal. App. 3d 94 (1991) (while an order staying arbitration was appealable, the agreement's choice of law provision foreclosed a preemption argument against a stay, and the joinder of a defendant not a party to the agreement was no ruse and risked conflicting rulings)
    Download the PDF

  • 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).
    Download the PDF

  • 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.).
    Download the PDF