LG Electronics used the “guise” of a “tentative investment offer” to gain access to the trade secrets of Alta Devices and built a line for producing thin gallium arsenide (GaAs) solar-energy films, Alta alleged in a federal complaint. GaAs technology “promises to be truly disruptive when it can be economically sold to broad market sectors,” said the complaint (in Pacer), filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in San Jose. “Any device, from a cell phone to a drone to an automobile to a laptop computer, when coated with thin GaAs solar film, can be powered by this independent energy source,” it said. LG, using confidential Alta information, "already developed its manufacturing capabilities to such a degree that it's now selling very similar thin GaAs solar film to early adopters, while moving or having moved toward full-scale, mass-commercialized economical production,” it said. “With its vast capital and manufacturing resources, LG, one of the world’s largest electronics manufacturers, threatens to drive Alta Devices out of business before Alta Devices can reach the stage of economical mass commercialization,” it said. Unless “restrained” by an injunction from using Alta’s trade secrets, Alta “will suffer irreparable injury and will not be able to compete effectively,” it said. LG didn’t comment.

Boxers Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather and HBO undertook "a classic case" of fraudulently inducing consumers to buy the 2015 pay per view of their match by withholding information about Pacquiao's health, class-action appellants said in a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brief (in Pacer) Tuesday appealing U.S District Judge Gary Klausner's August dismissal of their lawsuits. The lower court erred in ignoring plaintiffs' claims the fraudulent omissions concerned business strategy as well as athletic strategy, the appellants said in the docket 17-56366 filing. Showtime and Pacquiao outside counsel Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny in a statement Wednesday said fight fans "paid to see Manny Pacquiao box Floyd Mayweather -- and that’s exactly what they got. Plaintiffs have no claim and we look forward to responding to the appeal and explaining why the Federal Judge’s thorough decision is correct.”

Dish Network doesn't deny that a lower court used improper summary judgment evidence in its ruling in a trademark infringement claim (see 1704130013) and that evidence should have been disregarded, appellant Dishnet Satellite Connections said in a docket 17-1110 reply brief (in Pacer) Friday with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At the very least, Dishnet said, the factual dispute should have made summary judgment improper. Dishnet also said there's uncontroverted evidence that Kathy King used the Dishnet trademark for years, making her the senior user, and the summary judgment should be reversed. Appellee Dish, in its brief (in Pacer) in December, said the complaint by Dishnet and owner King is a straightforward breach-of-contract case, and her Digital Satellite Connections (DSC) -- which she created the day her contract as a Dish-authorized retailer expired and to which she transferred the trademarks and domain names in question -- wasn't a bona fide purchase and thus can't claim title to the property. Dish also said the appellants don't directly dispute the lower court acted in its discretion ordering King and DSC to transfer the assets to Dish.

Dish Network objections to the class in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class-action complaint ignored the court's direction to use existing data when it used new and unvetted data to create inconsistencies, the plaintiff said in a docket 1:14-CV-333 response (in Pacer) filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina. Plaintiff Thomas Krakauer derided Dish's analysis -- which found problems with 98 percent of the plaintiff's proposed class list of more than 11,000 -- and said its "near universal objections" overlook numerous reasons why a "superficial inconsistency" doesn't equate to a reasonable dispute about a class member's identity. The company's objection (in Pacer) last month to a previous plaintiff motion asking the court to enter judgment or authorize disbursal of the jury's award drew opposition from Krakauer. The sides have been at odds before over verifying class membership (see 1705110010).

By legally challenging YouTube's restricted mode feature, Conservative group Prager University is trying to turn the private service provider into a public forum regulated by the same constitutional standards that government must follow, defendants Google and YouTube said Friday in a motion to dismiss (in Pacer) filed with U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. They said any restrictions of access to posted videos are protected by the Communications Decency Act. Prager, in its suit (in Pacer) filed in October, said the restricted mode filtering isn't for protecting younger or sensitive viewers "but as a political gag mechanism to silence [it]." Prager counsel didn't comment now.

A class-action complaint alleging Netflix hid the negative effects of its May 2014 subscription price hike from investors didn't show the company's subsequent public statements about the increase were false or demonstrated it acted with scienter, Netflix said in a docket 17-cv-1070 reply (in Pacer) Wednesday in support of its motion to dismiss. The filing with the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in Oakland, also said since no amendment can cure the untimeliness of the action, coming more than two years after the facts on which the complaint rests were publicly known, it should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff James Ziolkowski, in his original complaint (in Pacer) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act and of SEC rules, argued that when the price hike's effects on subscriber growth became public in October 2014, he and other investors "suffered enormous investment losses" due the 19 percent decrease in share value. Plaintiffs' counsel didn't comment Thursday.

Sharp wants the International Trade Commission to terminate its Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into allegations that imports of four models of 43- and 50-inch Hisense smart TVs infringe two Wi-Fi patents granted to Sharp in 2012 (see 1709280069), Sharp said in a motion (login required) filed Friday in docket 337-TA-1072. In a complaint filed Aug. 29 (see 1709050045), Sharp said Hisense is licensed to make and sell Sharp-branded smart TVs in the U.S., but Hisense also is using the same technologies to make and market smart TVs under its own brand, in violation of the Sharp patents. Hisense called the complaint part of a “scorched-earth campaign of litigation” alleging “anything and everything” in an attempt to “undo” the 2015 license agreement that gave Hisense rights to sell Sharp-branded TVs in the U.S. (see 1709160001). Sharp now wants to withdraw the complaint “in whole,” saying “good cause exists to stay” the ITC’s procedural schedule “because termination of the investigation is imminent,” in its Friday motion.

Best Buy is “entitled” to refunds of $23.2 million in federal tax overpayments, “erroneous” and “illegally” imposed refund penalties and interest for “research credits” under an Accenture outsourcing contract for the 2005-2010 fiscal years that the IRS unfairly disallowed, said the retailer in a Wednesday complaint (in Pacer) filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Beginning in July 2004, Best Buy outsourced “many of its back-office functions,” including information technology, to Accenture and kept on “only a select group of employees to provide IT direction and oversight,” said the complaint. For five years, Accenture “performed a wide range of IT-related services for Best Buy, including large, advanced internal use software-development projects,” it said. Accenture also did R&D on Best Buy’s behalf “to create significant, company-wide software initiatives” for its internal use that were “highly innovative, involved significant technical and economic risks, and were not commercially available,” it said. Best Buy later hired PwC, which identified credit-qualifying research expenses from the Accenture contract equaling 15-20 percent of Best Buy’s “total spending on internal software development activities,” it said. On PwC’s advice, Best Buy filed amended returns seeking refunds for the research credits it didn’t previously claim, but the IRS rejected most of the credits and assessed the penalties it did under federal rules for discouraging “excessive” refund claims, said the complaint. Even if the courts ultimately disallow the refunds “in full” that Best Buy seeks on the research credits, Best Buy's still entitled to get the penalty money back “because it acted with reasonable cause and in good faith," and did so on PwC’s advice, it said. The Accenture contract and Best Buy's claims for the research credits predate the tenure of Hubert Joly, who arrived as Best Buy CEO in August 2012 (see 1208220040). IRS representatives didn’t comment Friday.

“NAB is extremely disappointed" with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (see 1712190052) for BMI and against DOJ to let performing rights organizations fractionally license some but not all of their music catalogs to broadcasters and other copyright users, the association said. "If sustained, this decision could disrupt the music licensing marketplace and impede the delivery of music."

The General Motors motion to quash the opinion of an expert witness for the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) who testified music CDs dubbed onto hard drives of car infotainment systems qualify as “digital audio copied recordings” (DACRs) under the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (see 1712010028) is “wholly without merit,” said AARC in a Friday memorandum (in Pacer). Testimony of Gareth Loy runs “afoul of virtually every principle” under Daubert for admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts, said GM’s motion. Trial judges use the standard to decide whether testimony is scientifically valid. GM’s assertion Loy’s testimony “is deficient because it does not rely on scholarly literature or replicable experiments is unsupportable,” said AARC. “The law is clear that an expert can rely on his or her experience and training as a basis for the expert’s opinion.” Loy’s testimony “is based on his expertise as a computer scientist and engineer, not as a ‘legal expert,’" as GM argued, said AARC. GM’s claim Loy lacked “special insight” about AHRA requirements “is misleading as that was not the substance” of testimony, it said. “GM’s selective use of quotes from various Daubert cases is of no import given that the proffered expert testimony here bears no resemblance to the testimony stricken or limited in those cases.”