FUJIFILM LOSES BID TO EXPAND VICTORY IN PATENT FIGHT

Fujifilm Corp. lost its bid Thursday to reverse a jury's finding that it waited too long to sue a married couple for fraudulently transferring their house to hide assets from an impending camera patent infringement suit, capping Fujifilm's February trial win at $1.2 million. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn told attorneys for Fujifilm on Thursday that a jury which found in February that couple Cindy Yang and Jimmy Chan fraudulently transferred $1.3 million to hide it from the Fujifilm also had enough evidence to find the statute of limitations had passed with respect to $177,500 they hid when selling their Arcadia, Calif., home. "The jury could have looked at this and said, 'Fujifilm is a big company with lots of resources, and we believe it's reasonable they could have found this out,'" Judge Dunn told attorneys, saying evidence supported the jury's finding that Fujifilm sued more than a year after it could have discovered the fraudulent transfer. "That's not an unreasonable inference." Thursday?s ruling marked the latest round In Fuji's long-running fight with a California couple it says infringed its patents on single-use camera technology, then hid assets to escape the costly legal consequences. The state court lawsuit traces back to 1998, when Fujifilm, a pioneer in disposable camera technology, began going after competitors for infringing its patents for the technology. The U.S. International Trade Commission launched an investigation that year into purported infringement by numerous companies, including Achiever Industries Ltd., a company owned by Chan. In 2003, a district court issued a $30 million judgment against another competitor, Jazz Photo Corp., according to Fujifilm. Fujifilm says it engaged in settlement negotiations with Chan between 1999 and November 2005. When those negotiations broke down, Fujifilm filed suit in federal court, eventually winning a $3.25 million settlement with Chan and Yang in July 2007, to be paid out on a two-year schedule. But Fujifilm says that Chan and Yang stopped making payments after fronting the first $1.75 million, forcing Fujifilm to file a second federal lawsuit. The company won a new $1.56 million judgment for breach of the settlement agreement in May 2008. According to the state court lawsuit at issue Thursday, Chan and Yang engaged in a series of transactions to shield their assets from a possible judgment beginning in 2004, including Chan?s transfer of a $750,000 interest in a Claremont, Calif., property to Yang. The lawsuit stated causes of action for fraudulent transfer and conspiracy. In February, a Los Angeles jury found in favor of Fujifilm, holding that the couple had engaged in a series of fraudulent transfers totaling $1.3 million. But the jury held that Fujifilm could have discovered one of the transactions ? the transfer of a $177,500 interest in an Arcadia, Calif., property ? more than a year before bringing suit, so that the transaction fell outside the statute of limitations. In May, the court entered a $1.2 million judgment for Fujifilm based on the jury's verdict. In a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed in June, Fujifilm Corp. asked the court to reverse the jury's finding on the statute of limitations defense, saying that even though Fujifilm had conducted property searches, there was no evidence that a property search alone was sufficient to put it on constructive notice about the Arcadia transfer. Judge Dunn rejected the motion, saying the evidence at trial was sufficient to uphold the jury's verdict. "The jury could look at this as a major multinational corporation with lots of legal resources, and they could reasonably have taken steps to uncover this," the judge said, denying the motion. "You won the lion's share of this case," he added, addressing Fujifilm?s attorney. Representatives for the parties weren?t immediately available for comment Thursday. Fujifilm is represented by Daniel A. Rozansky, John I. Lucas and Crystal Y. Jonelis of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. The defendants are represented by Richard M. Fannan of Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP. The case is Fujifilm Corp. v. Cindy Yang et al., case number BC436748, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. --Editing by Katherine Rautenberg. Article written by Zach Winnick of Law360.com. For full article and other great reads, please visit Law360.com.

Source: http://adlilaw.blogspot.com/2012/08/fujifilm-loses-bid-to-expand-victory-in.html

weather radar Heptathlon London 2012 shot put London 2012 Track And Field Jordyn Wieber michael phelps Kerri Strug