Appellant gamblers brought an action against respondents, sheriff and district attorney, to recover money seized by the sheriff that the gamblers used in illegal gambling games. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California) denied the gamblers' right to recover the money. The gamblers appealed.
The gamblers argued that the trial court erred in its judgment denying them the right to recover the money. The Business defense attorney affirmed the trial court's judgment, as the trial court would not lend assistance to persons whose claim for relief rests on an illegal transaction. The court found that the gamblers could not prove their right to possession of the seized money without disclosing that it was in use in their illegal gambling activities at the time of the sheriff's raid and their arrest in the gambling establishment. The court concluded that the trial court properly held that plaintiffs were not entitled to prevail in their suit for recovery of the seized gambling funds. The court found that the appeal did not concern the law of forfeitures.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the sheriff and district attorney.
Plaintiff inventor sued defendant law firm after the firm requested reexamination of two of the inventor's patents. Subsequently, the inventor filed an amended complaint. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted the firm's special motions to strike the inventor's original and amended complaints pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, and entered judgment in favor of the firm. The inventor appealed.
The firm's requests for reexamination challenged the validity of the inventor's patents on the ground that the claims of the patents were anticipated by prior patents or publications (i.e., prior art). The inventor alleged he was damaged because he had to defend the reexamination and was unable to enforce his patent rights until the reexamination reconfirmed the patentability of the reexamined claims. The court concluded that the inventor's complaints arose under federal patent laws and therefore were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) found that the prior art failed to disclose, teach, or suggest the invention described by the inventor's patents, this determination was not particularly instructive as to whether the requests for reexamination would have been granted absent the firm's alleged misrepresentations. Thus, the USPTO's decision confirming the inventor's patents did not obviate the substantial questions of federal patent law involved in determining whether the prior art would be considered important in deciding the patentability of the inventor's patent claims.
The judgment was vacated, and the matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
