SOME SIGNIFICANT COURT DECISIONS IN WHICH LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH ("LP&S") WAS OF RECORD
(As of January 2009)

In Mestre v. Vivendi Universal U.S. Holding Co., 2008 WL 1734161 (9th Cir. 2008), LP&S obtained affirmance of a summary judgment for the defendants screenwriter and distributor of the movie "Billy Elliot," against a claim of copyright infringement.

In Lassiter et al. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 238 Fed.Appx. 194 (9th Cir. 2007), LP&S defended the Fox defendants against a claim of copyright infringement regarding the movie "Drumline." LPS obtained a summary judgment and an award of attorneys fees to defendants of $540,000, which were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. 238 Fed.Appx. 194 (9th Cir. 2007).

In Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 2007 WL 2585053 (2007), after a Ninth Circuit panel had held that plaintiff pleaded a state law claim for breach of an implied in fact contract regarding the movie "Rounders," which pleading evaded preemption under the Copyright Act, the case was remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court. LP&S obtained a summary judgment for defendants on the ground that no such contract existed. The judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal.

In Welles v. Turner Entertainment Co., 503 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2007), after a Ninth Circuit panel had held that plaintiff was entitled to a reversal of a summary judgment regarding the application of a grant of motion picture rights in the movie "Citizen Kane" to a "new use," i.e., home video, LP&S was retained by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to file an amicus brief in support of a petition for rehearing. The Ninth Circuit amended its prior decision by adding a footnote 3 explaining that the Ninth Circuit was adopting a rule applying neutral principles to the "new-use" analysis, and acknowledging that a grant of rights in unknown future uses does not invariably require a "future technologies clause."

In A Slice of Pie Productions v. Wayan Brothers Entertainment, 487 F.Supp.2d 41 (2007), LP&S obtained summary judgment for the producers and distributors of the motion picture White Chicks against claims for copyright infringement and breach of implied contract. In a prior reported decision in the same case (392 F.Supp.2d 297 (D. Conn. 2005)), LP&S obtained dismissal of a Lanham Act claim and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, idea misappropriation and conversion.

In Merrill v. Paramount Pictures, 73, U.S.P.Q.2d 1603 (C.D. Cal. 2005), LP&S obtained a summary judgment dismissing a claim for copyright infringement against the movie "Crossroads", featuring Britney Spears.

In Gates v. Discovery Communications, Inc., et al., 34 Cal. 4th (2004), LP&S successfully defended the producer and distributor of a reality-based cable television show against claims for defamation and invasion of privacy arising from disclosure of the plaintiff's criminal past. In reversing the trial court's denial of defendants' special motion to strike filed under California's Anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court ruled that Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 4 Cal.3d 529 (1971), was no longer good law insofar as it held that civil liability could result from publishing facts in public official records in a criminal proceeding.

In Murray Hill Publications, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 361 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2004), LP&S was retained as appellate counsel and successfully obtained a reversal of a $19 million jury verdict for alleged copyright infringement by the motion picture "Jingle All The Way," and entry of judgment for Fox.

In Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002), LP&S successfully defended against a copyright infringement case against a TV series. The summary judgment for defendants was reversed on appeal, the Court of Appeals finding a triable issue of substantial similarity. Upon remand, a jury rendered a verdict for defendants. The verdict was affirmed on appeal. 200 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2006)

In Idema v. DreamWorks, 162 F.Supp.2d (C.D. Cal. 2001), LP&S successfully defended the motion picture "Peacemakers" against 8 copyright infringement claims and 39 related state claims. The summary judgment and dismissals on motion were affirmed. 2003 WL 23095763 (9th Cir. 2004).

In re Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., 254 B.R. 817, 2000 WL1677764 (D. Del. 2000), LP&S represented New Line Productions, the producer of the "Blade" motion picture, in a bankruptcy proceeding brought against debtor Marvel Entertainment, New Line's assignor. A comic book writer claimed that he had created and owned the copyrights in the Blade characters, and had given Marvel only limited license to publish them in comic book form. The district court held that Marvel owned the characters' copyrights as "for-hire works" because the writer, although an independent contractor, had created the works at Marvel's "instance and expense."

In Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) cert. denied 121 S.Ct. 881, 69 USLW 3318 (2001), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a verdict against Michael Bolton for copyright infringement of plaintiff's song. LP&S filed amicus briefs on behalf of the MPAA and RIAA in the Ninth Circuit and on behalf of the RIAA in support of Bolton's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

In Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 206 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 2000), On behalf of plaintiff Self-Realization Fellowship Church LP&S obtained a partial reversal of a summary judgment for defendant that held that works created by the founder of the plaintiff were not "for-hire" or corporate body works. After deciding a copyright issue of first impression--that both a periodical publisher and the author of contributions to a periodical may renew copyright in the contributions -- the appeals court remanded for a trial the question whether the deceased founder intended to assign his common law rights to the plaintiff Church. Upon remand, a jury found in favor of plaintiff.

In Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2000), after a bench trial found defendant liable for the use of copyrighted music embedded in a motion picture whose copyright had expired, LP&S was retained to bring an appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that although the film was published sufficiently to obtain federal copyright protection, it was not sufficiently published to inject the music into the public domain.

In Endemol Entertainment B.V. v. Twentieth Television, Inc., 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1524 (C.D. Cal. 1998), LP&S obtained a dismissal of a complaint for breach of an implied contract, on preemption grounds.

In Cochran v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 58 F.Supp.2d 1113 (C.D. Cal. 1998), LP&S was local counsel for the New York Post and one of its writers in a case in which Johnnie Cochran claimed that he was libelled in a Post column discussing his representation of a Haitian immigrant in a brutality case against Brooklyn police officers. The district court granted the newspaper's motion to dismiss, finding that the column was protected opinion.

In Film's of Distinction, Inc. v. Allegro Film Productions, Inc., 12 F.Supp.2d 1068 (C.D. Cal. 1998), LP&S represented a motion picture production company in a trademark and defamation action brought by the owner of the cable television "Crime Channel." LP&S obtained dismissal of the defamation and trade libel claims on a motion to dismiss.

In Weygand v. CBS Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1997), LP&S obtained summary judgment for CBS and the writers and producers of a television movie against a writer's claim that the television movie infringed the copyright in his screenplay. The district court also granted summary judgment against the plaintiff's related breach of confidence claim.

In Southland Sod v. Stover, 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997), LP&S was retained as special appellate counsel and succeeded in obtaining a reversal from the Ninth Circuit of a dismissal by the District Court on summary judgment in an action where two companies, engaged in the business of selling lawn turf and seed products, sued their competitors under federal Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws for false advertising.

In FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 108 F.3d 140 (7th Cir. 1997), LP&S obtained a reversal of the District Court's order denying Playmates' motion for attorneys' fees following Playmates' successful defense in a bench trial of claims brought by FASA for copyright and trademark infringement.

In Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D.Cal. 1996); 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), LP&S defended a book publisher and distributor of a humorous but critical account of the O.J. Simpson trial and the court system, entitled "Not The Cat In The Hat" using the style of the Dr. Seuss' storytelling, featuring O.J. Simpson wearing the cat's fanciful hat. The district court enjoined the distribution of the book for copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations rejecting federal dilution claims. The injunction was affirmed on appeal, rejecting a parody defense.

In Jacobs v. Transocean Entertainment, 99 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of LP&S' motion to dismiss certain of plaintiff's claims (and reversed the District Court's grant as to other claims) in a shareholder derivative action for copyright infringement and trademark violations against the producers and distributors of the movie "Brainscan."

In Slatzer v. HarperCollins, 83 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of LP&S' motion for summary judgment on behalf of defendants against plaintiff's claim that plaintiff was libeled in a book footnote that dismissed the plaintiff's claim that he was once married to Marilyn Monroe.

In Los Angeles News Service v. Reuters T.V. Intern., Ltd., 942 F. Supp. 1265 (C.D. Cal. 1996), LP&S obtained partial summary judgment against a news organization's copyright infringement claim over videotapes taken during the Los Angeles riots. During the statutory damages trial of the same case, reported at 942 F. Supp. 1275 (C.D. Cal. 1996), the district court found that neither party sustained their burden of proof on the issue of willful versus innocent infringement. The district court refused to allow plaintiff to recover damages under U.S. law for foreign infringements, but the appeals court allowed a limited exception. Upon remand, the district court determined plaintiff could not prove foreign damages.

In DiElsi v. Falk, 916 F.Supp. 985 (C.D. Cal. 1996), LP&S defended Universal Television and various employees of the "Columbo" television series against a claim that an episode of the series borrowed ideas and other literary material from the script submitted by plaintiff to one of the producers. The case was filed in state court, LP&S removed the case to federal court, and then obtained a partial dismissal of the claims.

In Star Editorial adv. Dangerfield, 7 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1993), LP&S defended a newspaper sued by a public figure (Rodney Dangerfield), alleging defamation, who sought to compel disclosure of the identity of a confidential source. The district court held that disclosure could be compelled because the public figure could not prove actual malice without the information, and he had exhausted alternative sources. The decision was affirmed on appeal in Star Editorial, Inc. v. United States, 7 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1993). At trial, Dangerfield was award a monetary sum, which was affirmed at 97 F.3d 1458 (9th Cir. 1996).

In Woods v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 62 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), LP&S defended the motion picture studio, producer and director in a copyright infringement case brought by an architect whose theoretical architectural drawing had been reproduced as a set design in the motion picture "12 Monkeys". Although the court stated an intention to issue an injunction, the case was settled before any injunction issued.

In Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1994), LP&S was local co-counsel representing a defendant that obtained summary judgment and dismissal, affirmed on appeal, in a false advertising, false designation of origin case brought by a former editor of a recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order under the federal Lanham Act.

In Schimmel v. Saban Entertainment (1994-95 unreported), LP&S obtained summary judgment on claim that defendants' cartoon series infringed the copyright in plaintiff's treatment and then obtained an award of attorneys' fees for defendants under the Copyright Act.

In BMMG, Inc. v. American Telecast Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) (unpublished), LP&S obtained summary judgment on a claim that defendants' "infomercial" constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act and the 9th Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion.

In Spinello v. Amblin Entertainment, 29 Cal.App.4th 1390 (1994) LP&S obtained a reversal of the trial court's denial of Steven Spielberg's petition for arbitration on grounds of unconscionability.

In Subafilms Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) LP&S convinced an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit to overrule its 1986 Peter Starr decision holding that a company may infringe a U.S. copyright by entering into a license in the U.S. to authorize the distribution of a film outside the U.S.

In Clorox Co. v. Inland Empire Wholesale Groceries, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1065 (1994), LP&S defended a bottler of household cleaning products against claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement and trade dress infringement brought by Clorox, S.C. Johnson and L&F. LP&S moved (unsuccessfully) for summary judgment, however, as a consequence of the court's findings favorable to the defendant, the matter was resolved shortly thereafter to the satisfaction of the defendant. Defendants alleged a wrongful seizure counterclaim which withstood plaintiff's motion to dismiss which contributed to the ability to resolve the matter.

In Taff v. Cannon (1993 unreported), LP&S successfully argued to the California Court of Appeal to affirm a judgment entered in defendants' favor after arbitration against plaintiff's claim that defendant breached an implied contract by using his ideas in the film "Superman IV."

In Rowe v. Spielberg (1993 unreported) ("Rowe II"), LP&S obtained affirmance of a dismissal of plaintiff's claims in state court that defendants' "Back To The Future" motion picture trilogy misappropriated his screenplay.

In Fine v. Petty, 974 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1583 (1993), LP&S argued successfully to affirm summary judgment for MCA Records, Inc. against a claim for copyright infringement regarding a Tom Petty composition.

In AMPAS v. Creative House, 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), LP&S, on behalf of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, obtained reversal of a District Court ruling that the Academy's OSCAR statuette was not protectible by copyright or trademark law.

In Neft v. Vidmark, Inc. ("Neft II"), 923 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1991), after obtaining summary judgment for defendants, LP&S obtained an award of fees and costs of $110,000 against plaintiffs and their counsel. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the award against plaintiffs' counsel and remanded for a determination whether plaintiffs' counsel might be liable on some other basis. The District Court found that he was, and reinstated the award against him, which was affirmed by an unpublished decision in the 9th Circuit.

In Shaw, et al. v. Richard Lindheim, et al., 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990), LP&S sought unsuccessfully to affirm a summary judgment it had obtained on behalf of the creators, producer, distributor and broadcaster of the television series "The Equalizer" against a claim of copyright infringement on the ground that the plaintiff's and defendants' works were not substantially similar in their respective protectible expression. Dismissal of the Lanham Act claim was affirmed. After a remand and jury verdict for plaintiff on liability, LP&S obtained a judgment for defendants notwithstanding the verdict. 809 F. Supp. 1393 (C.D.Cal. 1992).

In Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen (Effects II), 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub. nom. Danforth v. Cohen, 111 S.Ct. 1003 (1991), LP&S successfully argued to affirm a summary judgment for defendants in a copyright infringement claim.

In Harper House, etc., v. Thomas Nelson, etc., et al., 889 F.2d 197 (9th Cir. 1989), LP&S was retained to represent the defendants in an appeal after trial from an adverse jury award of $6 million upon a finding of copyright infringement and unfair competition with respect to competing time management systems known as "organizers," and was successful in obtaining a reversal in the 9th Circuit of the trademark judgment against the defendants and a remand of the copyright judgment for retrial. Thereafter, LP&S obtained summary judgment on the copyright claim, which the 9th Circuit reversed. After the case was remanded for trial, it was resolved.

In S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989), LP&S obtained a partial reversal in copyright claims regarding a computer program.

In Lutz v. De Laurentiis, 211 Cal. App. 3d 1317 (1989), LP&S defended the producers and distributors of the films "Amityville II" and "Amityville 3-D" regarding claims against the films' titles. The Court of Appeals reversed, allowing claims to proceed for unfair competition and affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims.

In Abend v. MCA, Inc.., LP&S obtained a summary judgment in defense of a copyright infringement claim against re-release of the film "Rear Window." A divided Ninth Circuit reversed. 863 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1988). The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 109 L.Ed.2d 184; 110 S.Ct. 1750 (1990), and remanded the matter.

In Anderson v. Stallone, 1989 CCH Copyright Law Dec. ?26,427 (C.D. Calif. 1989), LP&S obtained partial summary judgment on copyright and associated claims against the film "Rocky IV," the remaining claims were dismissed on summary judgment motions.

In Olson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 855 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1988), LP&S obtained a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Stephen Cannell Productions and MCA Television on a copyright infringement claim against the television series "The A-Team," and thereafter successfully briefed and argued to affirm such judgment.

In Trust Co. Bank v. Putnam Publishing Group, Inc., 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1874, 14 M.L.R. 2340, (C.D. Calif. 1988), LP&S defeated a motion for preliminary injunction by the owners of the copyright in "Gone With The Wind" against the novel The Blue Bicycle.

In Neft, et al. v. Vidmark, etc., et al. ("Neft I"), Case No. CV 88-2136 RJK (C.D.Cal. 1988), LP&S obtained summary judgment for the producers of the film "Adios Amigo" against claims relating to the rights to distribute video cassettes of the film on the ground that plaintiffs' claimed assignor held no rights to assign.

In Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, et al. ("Effects I"), 817 F.2d 72 (9th Cir. 1987), LP&S was successful in obtaining the affirmance of a dismissal of a copyright infringement action, where the Complaint alleged an oral promise between the parties that may have amounted to an assignment of license for the use of the copyrighted work, on the ground that the issue to be resolved was a question of state contract law.

In Baxter v. MCA Inc., 812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. Baxter, 484 U.S. 954 (1987), LP&S sought unsuccessfully to affirm a summary judgment for defendants regarding a claim that the theme music for the motion picture "E.T. -- The Extraterrestrial" infringed plaintiff's copyright. After remand, defendants prevailed in a jury trial, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for defendants in an unpublished opinion.

In Jeffrey v. Cannon Films, Inc., 3 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1373 (D.C.Cal. 1987), LP&S obtained partial summary judgment against claims of copyright infringement with respect to the defendant's alleged appropriation of plaintiff's wrestling table, rules and forms, and wrestling phrase "over the top" in connection with defendant's motion picture "Over The Top."

In Franklin, et al. v. Cannon Films, Inc., 654 F.Supp. 133 (C.D.Cal. 1987), LP&S obtained a dismissal of an action in which plaintiffs claimed copyright infringement, fraud and breach of contract in connection with the production and distribution of the motion picture "Runaway Train" on the ground that the issues involved (a) an interpretation of contract, not an examination of works for copyright infringement, and (b) matters of state contract law as to which the federal court was without jurisdiction.

In Rowe v. Spielberg, et al., Nos. 86-6756, 87-5738 (9th Cir. 1987 unreported), LP&S successfully argued to affirm a summary judgment of dismissal against a claim for copyright infringement against the motion picture "Back To The Future."

In Apple Corp. Limited v. Leber, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C 299 149 (1986), LP&S represented the producers of the "Beatlemania" stage show and film at trial against an action by the Beatles under §§ 50 and 51 of New York Civil Rights Law and for unfair competition. The matter was resolved while on appeal from a judgment at trial in favor of the Beatles.

In McFly, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 28 U.S.P.Q. 153 (C.D.Cal. 1985), LP&S successfully defended the producer and distributor of the motion picture "Back To The Future" against an attempt by the owners of a trademark in the name "McFly," used in restaurants, to enjoin future distribution of the motion picture.

In Moreland v. Universal City Studios, Inc., No. B007 604 (California Court of Appeal 1985) (unreported), LP&S successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants on episode of "The Rockford Files" television series against claims of plagiarism and breach of implied contract.

In Towery v. Stephen J. Cannell Productions, No. 84-6401 (9th Cir. 1985) (unreported), LP&S successfully argued to affirm summary judgment regarding copyright infringement claim against episode of "Tenspeed & Brownshoe" television series.

In Aguilar v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 3d 384 (1985), LP&S successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants regarding claims that motion picture "Zoot Suit" libeled and violated privacy rights of plaintiff.

In Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 88 L.Ed.2d 69 (1985), YH&L successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants on copyright infringement claims against the motion picture "Coma."

In Overman v. Universal City Studios, Inc., No. 84-6009 (9th Cir. 1985), YH&L successfully argued to affirm summary judgment granted by the district court (reported in 605 F. Supp. 350 (C.D.Cal. 1984)) for defendants on a copyright infringement claim against the motion picture "Bustin' Loose."

In Houts v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 603 F.Supp. 26 (C.D.Cal. 1984), LP&S obtained a partial summary judgment against the author of a book about a New York coroner who sued the producers of the television series "Quincy" for copyright infringement.

In Meta-film Associates, Inc. v. MCA Inc., 586 F.Supp. 1346 (C.D.Cal. 1984), YH&L represented the writers of the script and the producers for the motion picture "Animal House" in obtaining a partial summary judgment exonerating the initial script from copyright infringement claim.

In Berkic v. Moss (previously reported in 159 Cal. App. 3d 26, 205 Cal. Rptr. 674 (1984) (opinion withdrawn, though affirmed by California Supreme Court), YH&L successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants on claims for alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's screenplay in connection with motion picture "Coma."

In Klekas v. EMI Films, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 3d 1102 (1984), YH&L successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants regarding plagiarism and breach of implied-in-fact contract claims against the motion picture "The Deer Hunter."

In Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985), YH&L successfully argued to affirm summary judgment for defendants regarding copyright infringement and unfair competition claims against the motion picture "E.T. -- The Extraterrestrial."

In Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA Inc., 715 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1983), YH&L represented defendant series producers and distributors who had obtained a dismmissal on a motion for summary judgment regarding claim of copyright infringement by owners of motion picture "Star Wars" against television series "Battlestar: Galactica." The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a triable issue of substantial similarity of protected expression.

In Simmons v. Universal City Studios, Inc., (9th Cir. 1983) (unreported), YH&L successfully argued to affirm directed verdict after trial for defendants regarding copyright infringement claim against motion picture "In God We Trust."

In Valentine v. CBS, Inc., 698 F.2d 430 (11th Cir. 1983), YH&L obtained affirmance of summary judgment for defendants Bob Dylan and Jacques Levy on claim that lyrics of song defamed and invaded privacy of plaintiff.

In Cher v. Forum International, Ltd., 692 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1120 (1983), YH&L defended Penthouse regarding the alleged violation of "publicity right" and Lanham Act by reason of unauthorized use of name, and likeness in a magazine interview and subscription ads.

In Columbia Pictures v. Embassy Pictures, 8 Med.L.Rptr. 1948 (C.D.Cal. 1982), YH&L successfully opposed the attempt by the owners of the motion picture "Blue Lagoon" to enjoin exhibition and advertising of the motion picture "Paradise" on claims of copyright infringement and unfair competition.

In McGuiness v. Motor Trend Magazine, 129 Cal. App. 3d 59 (1982), YH&L successfully argued to affirm dismissal of a libel action against a magazine on statute of limitations grounds.

In Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Inc., 128 Cal. App. 3d 628 (1982), YH&L successfully argued to affirm judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict after trial regarding claim that defendants' motion picture "Shampoo" breached an implied-in-fact contract.

In Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir. 1981), YH&L successfully argued for reversal of judgment against defendants on jury verdict holding that the television motion picture "The Longest Night" infringed plaintiff's copyright.

In Miller v. CBS, 6 Med.L.Rptr. 1859 (C.D.Cal. 1980), YH&L obtained a summary judgment for defendants against the claim that the defendants' television series "Kaz" infringed the copyrighted work of plaintiff concerning an ex-convict in the practice of law.

In Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British Leyland, Ltd., 628 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1980), LP&S (then YH&L) defended a manufacturer of Jaguar and other automobiles sued by a distributor on antitrust claims. A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was affirmed.

In Followay Productions, Inc. v. Maurer, 603 F.2d 72 (9th Cir. 1979), YH&L successfully briefed and appeared for Universal City Studios, Inc. as amicus curiae to obtain affirmance of order dismissing plaintiff's copyright infringement claim against the motion picture "The Sting."

In Followay Productions, Inc. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 2d Civil No. 51973 (California Court of Appeal 1978) (unreported), YH&L successfully argued to affirm dismissal on demurrers regarding claims for unfair competition against the motion picture "The Sting."

In Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., 584 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1978), YH&L successfully argued for affirmance of summary judgment for defendants regarding claim that song infringed plaintiff's copyright.

In Goldblum v. National Broadcasting Corp., 584 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1978), YH&L represented Time-Life and was successful in obtaining emergency orders from appellate court to quash orders of district court requiring television network to deliver a print of a film for inspection by the district court in violation of First Amendment principles. (YH&L's participation was reported at 4 Media Law Reporter 1718.)

In Cool-Fin Electronics Corp. v. International Electronic Research Corp., 491 F.2d 660 (9th Cir. 1974), YH&L defended a manufacturer of electronic tube shields against an antitrust claim. In this proceeding, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a dismissal by the district court of IERC's patent infringement counterclaim.

Site Directory:
WELCOME  |  PRACTICE AREAS  |  RESOURCE LINKS  |   ATTORNEYS  |  REPORTED CASES
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS  |  FIRM OVERVIEW  |  MAP TO OFFICE

Copyright © by Leopold, Petrich & Smith. All rights reserved.

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon the contents of a website. Before you decide, ask us to send you additional free written information about our qualifications and experience.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

You may reproduce materials available at this site for your personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice.