We here at the blog would like to congratulate Judge Lucy Koh for being nominated by President Obama to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A press release from the White House stated that "Judge Lucy Haeran Koh has distinguished herself as a first-rate jurist with unflagging integrity and evenhandedness. [President Obama] is grateful for her service to the state of California and looks forward to adding her considerable wisdom and experience to the Ninth Circuit Court."
Judge Koh is no stranger to the media spotlight due to her work on high-profile intellectual property matters. We have repeatedly featured her opinions at our humble blog, as well. To help celebrate Judge Koh's nomination, we take a look back and remind our readers of prior posts discussing opinions by Judge Koh.
In Epikhin v. Game Insight N.A., Judge Koh explained the requirement that copyright holders deposit a copy of their work at the Copyright Office before bringing suit. She also provided a helpful analysis of personal jurisdiction in Xilinx v. Papst Licensing. She explained how the court lacked general jurisdiction over a defendant under the Supreme Court's Daimler v. Bauman decision. She also discussed in Xilinx whether a defendant's licensing activities give rise to personal jurisdiction, finding they did not. In an opinion in Takeda Pharmaceutical v. Twi Pharmaceuticals, Judge Koh emphasized the importance of prompt disclosure of invalidity contentions pursuant to the Northern District's local rules. And as we discussed in a post involving the Blackberry v. Typo Products litigation, Judge Koh is one of the judges who has concluded that Twombley and Iqbal apply to a defendant's affirmative defenses, in addition to the plaintiff's claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
