Latest Articles

On August 3, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited arbitration decision in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, No. B228027. The Court held that the arbitration provision found in a standard form auto finance and sales contract widely used by auto dealerships and lenders throughout California is not unconscionable. Not surprisingly, the Court acknowledged the recent U.S. Supreme Court authority holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts conflicting state law, and affirmed…
In Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., No. 13-10951, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has provided some guidance on the parameters of “prior express consent” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  In particular, the court held: (1) consent can be given on behalf of another person if an agency relationship exists and (2) a party may orally revoke consent.…
In SEC v. Shields, No. 12-1438, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3369 (10th Cir. Feb. 24, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to (1) raise a plausible claim that the interests at issue involved are securities, and (2) rebut the presumption that an investment labeled as a “general partnership” is a “security.”  The…
Hydraulic fracturing continues to increase, but regulations have lagged behind the practice. Hydraulic fracturing (sometimes called well stimulation treatment) is used as means to extract and explore underground oil and gas. SB 4 is an attempt by California legislature to regulate and oversee the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and other well stimulation treatments. SB 4 imposes requirements on oil and gas well operators and suppliers, and involves multiple regulatory state and district agencies…
The Honorable Judge James L. Robart recently took on the challenging task of determining a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents (“SEP”). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, No. C10-11823 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). This decision comes after a two-year patent war between Microsoft and Motorola. In November 2010, Microsoft filed a breach of contract suit, alleging Motorola breached its obligation to license its SEP at a…
The Honorable Judge James L. Robart recently took on the challenging task of determining a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents (“SEP”). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, No. C10-11823 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). This decision comes after a two-year patent war between Microsoft and Motorola. In November 2010, Microsoft filed a breach of contract suit, alleging Motorola breached its obligation to license its SEP at…