Leonie M. Brinkema

This case is an appeal by debtor Peter Paul Mitrano of multiple bankruptcy court orders in an adversary proceeding he filed against the Melkas and the United States. The proceeding sought a declaratory judgment regarding Mitrano's obligation to pay restitution from a prior criminal judgment, to undo an alleged fraudulent conveyance, and to pierce a corporate veil. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decisions, which included dismissing the claims against the Melkas for failure to state a claim, dismissing the United States as a party, denying a stay, and holding that Mitrano lacked standing as a Chapter 13 debtor to pursue fraudulent conveyance actions because that authority belongs exclusively to the trustee. The court also rejected Mitrano's attempt to proceed ex rel. on behalf of the United States and found no error in the denial of his motions for reconsideration or re-transfer.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between borrower Breton, LLC and its mortgage lender Lincoln National Life Insurance Company over rights to insurance proceeds from a fire-damaged property and related attorneys' fees from prior coverage litigation. The Deed of Trust assigned all such proceeds to Lincoln National, granted it discretion to apply them to the debt, and required Breton to pay Lincoln National's reasonable attorneys' fees. Breton had entered a contingency fee agreement entitling its lawyers to 15% of recovered amounts. The court granted Lincoln National's motion for summary judgment and denied Breton's, holding that the perfected Deed of Trust gave Lincoln National first priority over the later contingency fee arrangement, that no valid attorneys' lien existed without possession of the funds, and that the contractual provisions entitled Lincoln National to recover its fees and apply proceeds accordingly.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an employment discrimination action in which plaintiff Patricia Weth alleged that defendant Francis X. O'Leary, the Arlington County Treasurer, terminated her from her position as Deputy Treasurer for Litigation in retaliation for taking medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to undergo surgery and treatment for ovarian and uterine cancer. Weth claimed she was effectively demoted on the day she returned from leave by having her duties stripped and was later suspended and terminated. The court granted summary judgment to O'Leary in his official capacity, granted his motion in his individual capacity in part and denied it in part, and denied Weth's motion for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning addressed Eleventh Amendment immunity barring self-care FMLA claims against state actors and evaluated whether the stated performance-based reasons for termination were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a copyright infringement action brought by U.S. affiliates of major South Korean television broadcasters against several Virginia video stores and their owners, alleging unauthorized rental and sale of Korean-language TV programs after termination of prior license agreements. The defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's April 8, 2011 summary judgment ruling that the plaintiffs had adequately established ownership of the works at issue and thus had standing to sue. The court denied the motion, finding no basis to alter its prior holding because the plaintiffs provided sufficient proof of ownership through U.S. copyright registrations and other evidence, despite arguments that Korean law or work-for-hire status should control. A bench trial remains scheduled on issues including willfulness, damages, and breach of contract claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a consumer suing a debt collection company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a dunning letter that offered settlement discounts tied to tax season savings without warning about possible tax consequences of debt forgiveness. The plaintiff sought damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction, claiming the omission violated FDCPA provisions against deceptive or unfair collection practices. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). It held that the statute imposes no affirmative duty to disclose tax information and that requiring such advice would amount to the unauthorized practice of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act by the Shipbuilders Council of America and shipping companies to the U.S. Coast Guard's decision to grant a coastwise endorsement to the oil tanker Seabulk Trader following modifications performed in a foreign shipyard. The modifications included converting cargo tanks to segregated ballast tanks to comply with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990's double-hull and ballast requirements. Plaintiffs argued that the foreign work constituted a prohibited "rebuild" or "installation" under the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) and 46 U.S.C. § 3704, which would disqualify the vessel from domestic trade. The court upheld the Coast Guard's determination that the specific piping, valve, and tank conversion work did not qualify as a foreign installation of required segregated ballast tanks or exceed the regulatory thresholds for rebuilding, finding it consistent with the applicable statutes and regulations. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions.

business & regulatory

TecSec sued IBM for patent infringement, alleging that various IBM database, WebSphere, and System z products infringed claims from six patents related to encryption methods, including the DCOM patent family for distributed cryptographic objects, an XML encryption patent, and a parallel processor patent. IBM moved for summary judgment of no infringement based on its proposed claim constructions, while TecSec sought partial summary judgment on specific claims and defenses. The court granted IBM's motion and denied TecSec's, entering judgment for IBM after finding no genuine dispute that the accused products satisfied key claim limitations such as nesting encrypted objects within other encrypted objects, providing multi-level security, or storing encrypted objects as required. The reasoning centered on the absence of supporting evidence or source code from TecSec and the failure of the products to meet the construed patent requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a First Amendment challenge by Wag More Dogs, LLC, a canine daycare business, to Arlington County's Zoning Ordinance, which classified a large 960-square-foot mural of cartoon dogs on the exterior of its building as a commercial sign exceeding the 60-square-foot limit for light industrial districts. The plaintiff argued that enforcement of the ordinance, including requirements to modify or remove the mural, violated its free speech rights. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the mural constituted commercial speech subject to a valid, content-neutral size restriction under the ordinance and that the county had offered multiple compliance options without compelling any specific message. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied as moot, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement action filed by Pragmatus AV, LLC in the Eastern District of Virginia against four internet companies—Facebook, LinkedIn, Photobucket, and YouTube—alleging that their video uploading and linking features infringe three patents related to media file storage, distribution, and playback. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, where most are headquartered. The court granted the transfer, finding that the action could have been brought in California and that factors including party and witness convenience, access to evidence, and the interests of justice—particularly to prevent forum shopping motivated by the "rocket docket"—weighed strongly in favor of transfer, given the plaintiff's limited connections to Virginia.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves TecSec's claims that IBM infringed multiple patents related to encryption methods, including the DCOM family of patents for distributed cryptographic objects, an XML encryption patent, and a parallel processor patent. IBM raised affirmative defenses of patent invalidity due to anticipation by prior art and inequitable conduct, primarily alleging that TecSec failed to disclose a co-inventor and certain prior art references to the PTO. On cross-motions for summary judgment addressing these defenses, the court denied IBM's motion in full, finding that the evidence did not establish inequitable conduct or invalidity as a matter of law. The court also denied TecSec's motion in part on the issues of inventorship for the DCOM patents and inequitable conduct regarding those patents, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact required resolution at trial, while deferring ruling on the remaining aspects of TecSec's motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a False Claims Act action in which the government alleged that Oracle made false statements to the General Services Administration during negotiations for a Multiple Award Schedule contract to sell software to federal agencies by failing to disclose the extent of commercial discounts it offered, leading to overcharges. The court considered Oracle's motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. It held that the government's claims were time-barred because the 1998 GSA OIG audit report provided sufficient notice of potential issues with Oracle's disclosures, starting the three-year limitations clock well before the relator's 2007 complaint and the government's 2010 intervention. The core reasoning was that the government should have known of the claims by May 2007 at latest and could not rely on tolling or delayed discovery given the audit's red flags.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Cvent suing Eventbrite for allegedly scraping data from its website to build a competing venue directory, claiming copyright infringement, violations of computer fraud laws, Lanham Act reverse passing off, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conspiracies. The court granted Eventbrite's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Virginia Computer Crimes Act, breach of contract, and conspiracy counts for failure to state a claim or preemption, while allowing the Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. It also struck requests for statutory damages and attorneys' fees under copyright law because the alleged infringement occurred before copyright registration, and for other dismissed claims. The reasoning centered on legal standards for pleading, preemption by federal copyright law, and the timing requirements for certain copyright remedies.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

Jerry Terrell Jackson filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of his Virginia death sentence for the rape and murder of an elderly woman, alleging multiple constitutional errors in the penalty phase of his trial. The court reviewed nine remaining claims after earlier denial of guilt-phase issues, analyzing them primarily as ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Strickland standard due to procedural defaults. It granted relief on seven claims involving counsel's failure to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence and the inadequacy of mitigation instructions to the jury, finding both deficient performance and resulting prejudice that undermined confidence in the death sentence. The court denied relief on two claims concerning the prosecutor's closing arguments. All determinations were made under the constraints of AEDPA review of the state court's prior adjudication.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, bankruptcy trustees for Global TeleSystems Group, Inc. sued former CEO H. Brian Thompson to enforce a $10 million promissory note he signed in 1999 as part of his employment agreement to purchase company stock. The note, secured by the shares and governed by Virginia law, became due upon termination or by April 2005. After Thompson's termination, the parties executed a 2000 severance agreement under Delaware law that waived certain repayment triggers tied to termination and included a broad release of claims by the company, but explicitly addressed the note's continued enforceability in a separate paragraph. The court granted the trustees' motions for summary judgment, denied Thompson's cross-motion and his indemnity counterclaim, and entered judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the release did not extinguish the note obligation because the parties had addressed it separately and the release language did not clearly include it.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case is a qui tam action brought by plaintiff Matthew Pequignot against Solo Cup Company under 35 U.S.C. § 292, alleging that Solo falsely marked billions of disposable cup lids and packaging with expired patent numbers ('797 and '569 patents) and a 'may be covered' patent phrase, done with intent to deceive the public. The district court granted Solo's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, finding no liability. The core reasoning was that Solo lacked the required intent to deceive because it had relied on advice from outside patent counsel regarding the permissibility of phasing out the markings on existing mold cavities as they wore out, rather than replacing them all at once, and had implemented a policy consistent with that advice; the court also addressed but did not resolve the separate issue of how to define an 'offense' for calculating fines.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, three groups of Freddie Mac shareholders filed derivative lawsuits on the company's behalf against former board members and other entities, alleging claims related to the company's financial losses. After the FHFA was appointed conservator of Freddie Mac under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), it intervened and moved to substitute itself for the shareholder plaintiffs in the actions. The court granted the FHFA's motions to substitute, holding that HERA's provisions transferred to the FHFA all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of Freddie Mac's shareholders with respect to the company. The court reasoned that the statute expressly empowers the FHFA to take over the company's assets and operations with the full powers of shareholders and directors, and that allowing the derivative suits to proceed would violate the provision barring judicial interference with the FHFA's conservatorship functions.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved StateScape, a database provider for legislative tracking, suing its former client AFSA and competitor KSE after discovering that AFSA had shared passwords, allowing KSE to access and copy StateScape's proprietary database content for years without authorization. StateScape asserted claims including copyright infringement, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Virginia Computer Crimes Act, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract. The court ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss several counts for failure to state a claim, granting the motions in part and denying them in part. The core reasoning addressed whether the alleged password sharing and access constituted unauthorized activity under the statutes, whether certain state claims were preempted by federal copyright law, and whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the required elements for each cause of action.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a patent interference proceeding between Rolls-Royce and United Technologies Corporation (UTC) over designs for swept fan blades in jet engines, with UTC as the senior party based on its earlier filing date. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences denied Rolls-Royce's preliminary motion for judgment of no interference-in-fact, effectively ruling for UTC. After a three-day bench trial, the district court reversed the Board's decision under 35 U.S.C. § 146, finding that Rolls-Royce's claim 8 (including a forward sweep at the tip and convergent casing) described a patentably distinct invention not rendered obvious by UTC's claim 23 or the prior art. The court entered judgment in the interference in favor of Rolls-Royce based on evidence of distinct elements and the state of the art at the time.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by plaintiff Matthew Pequignot against Solo Cup Company under the false patent marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, alleging that Solo had marked products with expired patent numbers and used conditional patent language on unmarked items. Solo moved to dismiss, claiming Pequignot lacked Article III standing because he suffered no personal injury and alternatively that the qui tam provision violated separation of powers under Article II. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute's language authorizing "any person" to sue as a relator, with half the penalty going to the United States, conferred standing consistent with historical qui tam precedents like Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens. The court further found no separation of powers violation because the government's interest was assigned to the relator in a manner that did not improperly interfere with executive enforcement authority.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a declaratory judgment action in which Royal Alliance sought to avoid FINRA arbitration of claims by Branch Avenue alleging fraudulent investment advice by non-party United Securities. Two years after the investment, Royal Alliance purchased most of United Securities' assets under an agreement that expressly excluded liabilities. The court granted summary judgment to Royal Alliance, declaring it not subject to arbitration and enjoining further claims against it in that forum. The court reasoned that Royal Alliance had no arbitration agreement with Branch Avenue, did not assume United Securities' liabilities, and was not a successor under de facto merger or mere continuation theories because the transaction involved no stock transfer for ownership continuity and United Securities did not dissolve. The court also noted that FINRA's denial of a prior motion to be excused from arbitration did not address arbitrability.

business & regulatoryprocedure