§Why CasetextPricing

Lawrence B. Lockwood et al v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' State Law Claims Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 Complaint -

30 Cited authorities

  1. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,184 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA

  2. Flatley v. Mauro

    39 Cal.4th 299 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,323 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP protection is not available where the "assertedly protected speech or petition activity [is] illegal as a matter of law"

  3. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity

    19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,069 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that anti-SLAPP motions brought "to strike a cause of action arising from a statement made before, or in connection with an issue under consideration by, a legally authorized official proceeding need not separately demonstrate that the statement concerned an issue of public significance."

  4. ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson

    93 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 638 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff "failed to establish probability of success under California's anti-SLAPP statute on abuse of process claim because plaintiff alleged misuse of administrative process of Federal Communications Commission rather than abuse of judicial process"

  5. Wilcox v. Superior Court

    27 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "probability" is equivalent to a "reasonable probability" of prevailing

  6. Young v. Lumenis

    492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 214 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the claim language "incision . . . near the edge of the ungual crest of the claw" of an animal is not indefinite even though "near" depends on the animal being considered

  7. U.S. v. Lockheed Missiles Space Co., Inc.

    190 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 1999)   Cited 204 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar motion to strike under California state law applies in federal court

  8. DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Superior Court

    78 Cal.App.4th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 182 times
    Finding that statements made about medication to be in the public interest based on the number of people potentially affected and the seriousness of the potential effects

  9. Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey

    476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 147 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Walker Process claimant must meet "higher threshold showings of both materiality and intent than are required to show inequitable conduct."

  10. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23

    42 Cal.App.4th 507 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that "interference with the market" theory of liability could not be employed to prove the tort, which "applies to interference with existing noncontractual relations which hold the promise of future economic advantage"

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,938 times   944 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 425.16 - California anti-SLAPP law

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16   Cited 2,833 times   110 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's denial of anti-SLAPP motion as moot and remanding for consideration of the motion, including attorney's fees

  13. Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1   Cited 2,287 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims

  14. Section 1 - Establishment

    35 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 506 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Congress did not intend to change these "narrowing interpretations"

  15. Section 302 - Request for reexamination

    35 U.S.C. § 302   Cited 180 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a request for a reexamination must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to the patent at issue

  16. Section 301 - Citation of prior art and written statements

    35 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 117 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Referring to “the proper meaning of a patent claim in a proceeding that is ordered or instituted pursuant to section 304, 314, or 324 ”

  17. Section 306 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 306   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a petitioner can appeal adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit after reexaminations are complete