Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc.

Holding that a party's "course of delay" in performing the terms of the contract, when "unreasonable or undertaken in bad faith, may provide sufficient grounds" for a finding of waiver

Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.

Holding that plaintiffs could prevail if they could prove at trial that certain transfers made pursuant to a Ponzi scheme were made within the limitations period of California's UFTA

O2 Micro Intern. v. Monolithic Power Sys

Holding that diligence must be considered in determining whether good cause exists to amend infringement contentions

Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

Holding that title insurer owed no duty of ordinary care to non-clients, commenting that "[i]n the business arena it would be unprecedented to impose a duty on one actor to operate its business in a manner that would ensure the financial success of transactions between third parties"

Catalina Market. Intern. v. Coolsavings.com

Holding that "the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the041 patent demonstrate that the preamble phrase `located at predesignated sites such as consumer stores' is not a limitation of Claim 1," for "the applicant did not rely on this phrase to define its invention nor is the phrase essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body"

Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.

Holding that “non-naturally occurring” and “not isolated” were structural elements defining the source of the claimed material, rather than steps for obtaining it

Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Services, Inc.

Holding that federal law was not "necessary element" of UCL claim, since plaintiff"does not have to rely on a violation of the Exchange Act nor an infraction of an NYSE rule or regulation to bring a UCL claim in California state court. He merely has to allege that Defendants' conduct was either unfair or fraudulent. . . . Rather, [plaintiff] seeks to use a state statute, namely California's Unfair Competition Law, as a vehicle to hold Defendants liable for misleading and deceptive practices . . ."

Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc.

Holding "movable link member" was subject to § 112 ¶ 6

Smithkline Diagnostics v. Helena Laboratories

Holding that an accused infringer's mis-marking of a product could not convert by estoppel an admittedly non-infringing product into an infringing product

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Section 17200 - Unfair competition defined

Prohibiting unlawful business practices

Section 1689 - Consent of parties; cases in which party may rescind

Allowing a party to unilaterally rescind a contract if its consent to the contract was "obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds"

Section 1688 - Generally

Section 257 - Supplemental examinations to consider, reconsider, or correct information