Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

ASSIGNMENT DESK: A Patent Dispute of Concern to Hot Young Women – Local Angle! – Health Angle! – LIFEFACTORY vs. ???

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

I’ll tell you, ONLY IN MARIN, ’cause only in Marin will you find the LifeFactory company, which makes those expensive, fashionable glass water bottles with silicone covers what are all the rage at the hot yoga the past few years. LF offers us “mobile glass solutions for modern life,” don’t you know.

I’ll tell you, this company up in Sausalito is crunchier than all get out, so you’ll have plenty to talk about when you go up there to ask about their knock-down drag out fight with The Competition.

That’s right, the Lifefactory ppl have US Patent 8579133 B2, Protective sleeves for containers. Check it:

Capturekgygygggfkjgf

 

You can see their press release below.

But come now the Ello and Zulu ppl to say, well, read what they have to say right here.

This story writes itself.

Bonus Time: Local Successful Female Entrepreneur of Color

Question Time:

1. Dear LF, what’s wrong with people buying Ello bottles at Costco #144 in SoMA for $7.49? (Oh, you’ll get an earful on that one, about how Ello sucks, which, you know, the pop-tops do seem a bit cheesy, but then again, everybody I know with the LF bottles complains about leaking caps, so there you go,)

2. And if your lawsuit is going so great, why is it that ppl can still buy Ello stuff in ‘Merica?  

3. And Ello uses squares instead of circles (and Zulu uses a diamond pattern, I think), so what’s so wrong with that? 

Enquiring Minds Want To Know. 

I’ll tell you, nobody’s covered this one. This is your story.

This is the most accessible, local patent law case you will find. I’m srsly.

Engage.

 

“SAUSALITO, Calif., July 21, 2014 — Lifefactory, Inc. (www.lifefactory.com), the leading provider of mobile glass solutions for modern life, today announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Leapfrog Product Development LLC, the manufacturer of the Ello and Zulu water bottle lines, for offering for sale, selling, and distributing reusable glass bottles with protective silicone sleeves in violation of Lifefactory’s patent. The company’s lawsuit alleges infringement of Utility Patent No. 8,579,133, which covers Lifefactory’s innovative sleeves and wraps for protecting containers.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, represents Lifefactory’s dedication to protecting its brand while issuing a warning to others attempting to or planning to infringe on its innovations. The lawsuit is the largest and most significant to date brought by Lifefactory, and is part of the company’s ongoing proactive efforts to combat the unlawful production, distribution, and sale of products that infringe on its valuable intellectual property rights.

“Lifefactory’s patent portfolio represents years of hard work and showcases our commitment to innovation on behalf of our customers,” said Roy Mabrey, C.O.O. of Lifefactory, Inc. “Putting our utility patent into full effect will allow our retail partners and consumers to be able to purchase high-quality products they can trust without confusion.”

Lifefactory has been awarded numerous design and utility patents and has additional patents pending in the U.S. and internationally. For additional information, please visit www.lifefactory.com/ip.

ABOUT LIFEFACTORY, INC.

Lifefactory is the leading provider of mobile glass solutions for modern life. The Company brings the purity of glass, the protection of silicone, and the power of color to a full line of products designed for healthy families. Lifefactory’s materials are free of all known harmful substances including BPA/BPS and phthalates. All components are made in North America andEurope. All products are dishwasher safe. The Company is privately held and headquartered in Sausalito, CA.

SOURCE Lifefactory, Inc.”

Oh My: Rob Anderson and Mary Miles Take Aim at the SFMTA’s Plans for Polk Street

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

This was the team that tied SFGov up in knots with an injunction for four long years.

They’re ba-aack:

FROM:
Mary Miles (SB #230395)
Attorney at Law
for Coalition for Adequate Review
San Francisco, CA 94102
TO:
Edward Reiskin, Director
Roberta Boomer, Board Secretary
and Members of the Board of Directors of the Municipal Transportation Agency
#1 South Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
DATE: March 3, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT, MTA BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2015, AGENDA ITEM 12 (“Polk Streetscape Project”)
This is Public Comment on Agenda Item 12, the “Polk Streetscape Project” (“Polk Project” or “the Project”), on the MTA Board’s March 3, 2015 Agenda. Under the Brown Act and CEQA, you are legally obligated to accept and consider this Comment and to place it in all public files on the Project. Therefore, please assure that this Comment has been distributed to all members of the MTA Board and placed in all applicable files on the Project.
The “categorical exemptions” invoked do not apply to the Project, and therefore you may not lawfully approve the Project or any part of it as proposed, since such approval will violate the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Res. Code §§21000 et seq.)
The Project proposes to reduce traffic and turning capacity on Polk and other Streets by eliminating existing parking lanes, reducing traffic lanes and installing obstructions to traffic flow and turning on this busy commercial corridor.
The unusual and highly inconvenient scheduling of this hearing before the MTA Board after 3:00 p.m., on a day with an extraordinarily long MTA Board Agenda shows the MTA Board’s contempt for the public and the significant impacts of the Project. The hearing should be continued to a date and time when the public can be heard without waiting hours for hearings on unrelated matters, and where the public’s comments will receive the Board’s full and serious attention. The hearing precludes public attendance by many people, including all those people who have to be at work. Combined with the short notice, that scheduling deprives the public of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the environmental review and administrative proceedings on the Project.
On January 15, 2015, the San Francisco Planning Department issued a “Certificate of Determination of Exemption from Environmental Review” (“Exemption”) claiming that the Project was categorically exempt under Classes 1, 2, and 4 of CEQA, invoking 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“Guidelines”] §§ 15301, 15302, and 15304. None of those categorical exemptions apply to this Project. Further, the significant cumulative impacts on traffic, transit, parking, loading, and air quality caused by the Van Ness BRT project one block away, and by the CPMC Project at Van Ness Avenue at Geary Boulevard, make the Polk Project not categorically exempt. (Guidelines §15300.2) Both of those Projects also present “unusual circumstances” precluding categorical exemption of the Polk Project.
1. The Polk Project Does Not Fit Within The Categorical Exemptions Invoked…

First SF Loses Its Hooters and Now This: Dick’s Last Resort Shutters After Six Months – Who’s Next for 353 Jefferson?

Wednesday, January 14th, 2015

Of course, our Hooters was having to deal with some wage and hour lawsuit issues when it went away, but one supposes the rents up there at 353 Jefferson were too high for them to keep on keeping on.

This was the replacement – Dick’s Last Resort. It lasted six months.

P1180519 copy

I can’t imagine locals going to 353 Jefferson for any kind of restaurant, and the tourists are probably heavier at the other end of the wharf, and the building is set back a ways from the sidewalk, so these can be challenges:

P1180520 copy

Who will try to make a go of it next at this cursed location?

Whoa: Asiana Airlines Flights To and From SFO “Likely” to be Suspended for as much as Four Months – Punishment for Flight 214

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

From San Francisco-based military writer Kyle Mizokami comes word of a plan to temporarily suspend Asiana Airlines flights between Incheon International Airport (ICN) and SFO:

Asiana Faces Suspension of San Francisco Flights

“Under the plan, the ministry will ask Korean Air to use larger aircraft on the Incheon-San Francisco route to increase the number of seats, bring in chartered planes, or channel passengers on transit routes. A senior ministry official recently visited concerned lawmakers at the National Assembly to brief them on the plan.”

Does this seem real to you? It seems real to me. Or perhaps elements of the Republic of Korea are trying to scare Asiana straight after the Flight 214 disaster?

Korean Air currently uses Boeing 747 and 777 aircraft on this route – might it be tough for it to expand capacity just for a few months? IDK. I can’t think of too many options for KA to use planes larger than these, excepting for one or two of their ten newish double-decker superjumbo Airbus A380’s, but it’s not like those aircraft are just sitting around waiting to be used this way.

This suspension idea doesn’t make sense to me – I suppose we’ll find out tonight…

[UPDATE: Well, a 45 suspension just got handed down, but Asiana wants to appeal the decision.]

Sympathy for the Landlord Who Inherited the Apartment You Rent: Writer CW Nevius Cries a River over Rent Control

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

HERE ARE JUST TEN OR SO THINGS WRONG WITH THE LATEST EFFORT FROM CW NEVIUS:

“Real estate attorney Elizabeth Erhardt has an incredibly unpopular outlook. She’s sympathetic to San Francisco landlords. And before being drowned out by a chorus of boos and hisses…”

THIS MIGHT COME AS A SURPRISE TO THE NEVIUS, BUT THIS “OUTLOOK” IS NOT “INCREDIBLY UNPOPULAR.” HOW ABOUT SOMEWHAT UNPOPULAR, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD?  STRIKE ONE

“They inherited a…. It’s her sole source of income.”

SO NEVIUS, YOU COULDN’T FIND ANY RICH SAN FRANCISCO LANDOWNER WHO DIDN’T INHERIT PROPERTY? EVERYBODY YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE GOT THEIR LAND FOR FREE WITH A STEPPED-UP BASIS, AND AT LEAST ONE IS LANDED GENTRY WITHOUT A J-O-B? WHAT IS THIS, ANOTHER EPISODE OF DOWNTON ABBEY? IT’S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP (LAND)LORD? DON’T YOU SEE THIS AS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR HARD-LUCK LANDLORD STORIES HERE? STRIKE TWO

“Oh come on, you say. Subletting without the landlord’s permission is illegal. Just toss them out.”

FIRST OF ALL NEVIUS, SUBLETTING WITHOUT THE LANDLORD’S PERMISSION ISN’T “ILLEGAL.” STRIKE THREE. AND SECOND OF ALL, WITHOUT REALIZING IT, YOU’RE CALLING INTO QUESTION THE MANAGEMENT SKILLZ OF THE OWNERS. OF COURSE MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE WORKED OUT AT THE SF RENT BOARD, BUT YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, OK FINE. BUT, FOR THAT, STRIKE FOUR.

“Erhardt says she had a case where the original tenant was paying $19 a month for his apartment because he’d installed sub-leasers to pay most of the way.”

SO FINE, TAKE IT TO THE RENT BOARD – WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE? PROVE UP YOUR CASE AND YOU’LL WIN, EASY-PEASY. AWWWW, THAT’S TOO HARD FOR YOU, YOU DON’T HAVE STOMACH TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF LANDLORDING IN SF? WELL, WHO PROMISED YOU, THE INHERITOR, THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, WHO PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN? WHY NOT INSTEAD JUST SELL THE PROPERTY AND ENJOY YOUR UNEARNED INCOME? FOR NOT STATING THE OBVIOUS, THAT’S STRIKE FIVE FOR THE NEVIUS.

Critics say these are just a few anecdotal examples. 

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, NEVIUS? WHO ACTUALLY SAID THIS? AND HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF  STRAW DOGS HAVE YOU BIRTHED OVER THE YEARS, YOU LAZY WRITER, CW NEVIUS? STRIKE SIX. (LET’S BRING OUT THE “T”)

“…poperty owners.”

HEY NEVIUS, YOU DON’T HAVE AN EDITOR, HUH? I KNOW THAT BECAUSE OF TEH TYPOS. AND THAT’S NOT A PROBLEM IN ITSELF, BUT AN EDITOR WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SAYING STUFF LIKE HOW NOT GETTING A LANDLORD’S PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING IS “ILLEGAL.” WHAT YOU NEED IS SOMEBODY TO GO THROUGH ALL YOUR SENTENCES AND THEN SAY, “NOW IS THIS ACTUALLY TRUE?” SO YEAH, SURE, YOU CAN FIX THE TYPOS, BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE ERRORS WHAT _AREN’T_ TYPOS? STRIKE SEVEN

A simple concept, rent-controlled apartments for those who need a financial break, has become as Byzantine as the tax code.

WELL, LET’S SEE HERE. NUMBER ONE, SF RENT CONTROL IS NOT “AS BYZANTINE AS OUR TAX CODE,” NOT BY A LONG SHOT. FOUL TIP. NUMBER TWO, RENT CONTROL WAS MEANT FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST “THOSE WHO NEED A FINANCIAL BREAK.” RIGHT? ‘CAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANS-TESTED, RIGHT? IN THAT WAY, IT’S SIMILAR TO PROP 13, RIGHT? HEY NEVIUS, DO YOU PROPOSE MEANS-TESTING PROP  13? OH YOU DON’T? MMMM… AND HEY, AREN’T YOU A SAN FRANCISCO NEWCOMER WHOSE SOMA CONDO IS UP IN VALUE BIG-TIME SINCE YOU BOUGHT JUST A FEW YEARS AGO? HEY, DON’T YOU BENEFIT FROM PROP 13? DO YOU REALLY NEED IT, NEVIUS? HEY, WHY DON’T WE MEANS-TEST YOUR PROP 13 BENEFITS, NEVIUS? STRIKE EIGHT

“Rent control was enacted in 1979,” said New. “The law has been changed, like, 72 times since then.”

AND SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WERE, LIKE, AT THE BEHEST OF … THE SFAA, RIGHT? IS JANAN NEW COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHANGES HER ORG INSTIGATED? WHY DIDN’T YOU ASK HER THAT, MR. EVERYMAN? STRIKE NINE 

“It’s the haves against the have-nots,” Erhardt said, “and every tenant attorney thinks they are Robin Hood.”

AND DOES EVERY TENANT ATTORNEY THINK THEY ARE ROBIN HOOD, IRL? NOPE. STRIKE TEN, AND YOU, CW NEVIUS, THE MIGHTY CASEY, ARE OUT.

AUDI 5000…

Allegations About the Troubles of the Koret Foundation: An $80,000 Life-Sized Mural of a Board Member?

Thursday, October 9th, 2014

This is news to me:

“Without board approval, commissioned and installed a life-size mural depicting himself and now hung inside the Koret Foundation’s new headquarters in San Francisco at a cost to the Foundation of $80,000.”

I’ll tell you, this one allegation should prolly make you never even consider starting up any kind of foundation.

And what’s the response – a general denial about how all the charges are “bogus” and an ad hominem attack against the widow of Koret?

Spokesmodel Nate Ballard could try to explain the painting / mural – like he could say how it didn’t cost $80k or how it was authorized, but he chooses not to.

OK fine.

Hey is it “erratic” to want to invite non-poor non-Jewish Willie Brown in to the Koret Foundation? Probably. But there’s a lot of erraticism going on on these charitable boards – that’s no reason for a dismissal.

All right, have at it Koret Foundation. Let’s hope the fund will be in better shape and be used for better purposes after all this gets hashed out.

All the deets;

“Lawsuit Filed by Widow of Koret Foundation Founder Demands New Independent Board to Save Half-Billion Dollar Foundation from Spending Down Assets

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 8, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — The widow of Koret Foundation founder Joseph Koret has filed suit against Koret Foundation Board President Tad Taube, accusing him and the Foundation’s Board of Directors of conflicts of interest in funding pet projects that include conservative causes in the United States and charities in his native country of Poland.

The suit filed October 7, 2014 in San Francisco Superior Court by Mrs. Koret alleges that under Taube’s direction the board has ignored the priorities established by her late husband to help the poor and assist Jewish causes in the Bay Area and Israel.

Instead, her suit claims, the Koret board is using foundation funds to promote programs closely affiliated with individual board members and is purposely confusing the public by putting signage that prominently features Taube’s name alongside the Koret Foundation name on buildings and grants for which the Koret Foundation is the principal funder.

“Defendants’ duty of loyalty to the Foundation has been corrupted by these directors’ close affiliations with many of the Foundation’s recent grants, resulting in tens of millions of dollars distributed due to self-interest,” according to the lawsuit.

(more…)

Koret Foundation Board vs. Mrs. Koret – Open Letter Labels Her Erratic, Unfit to be Lifetime Chair

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

The question in this case is how the board is spending the money. Perhaps somebody should look into that.

As far as whether Susan Koret is as crazy as 7/8ths of the board is making her out to be, well, that’s not the real issue.

Read the board’s letter below and then read Mrs. Koret’s side of the story here.

And let me just say, “Mmmm…”

In the late 1970s Taube convinced the Korets, who had no children, to donate their estate to charity.”

Here it is:

An Open Letter from the Koret Foundation Board of Directors

October 8, 2014

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

We are seven of the eight Directors of the Koret Foundation Board of Directors, and have served alongside the eighth, Ms. Susan Koret, for decades. Today, we write withone voice to express our regret regarding the actions Ms. Koret has taken in filing litigation against her fellow members of the Koret Foundation Board of Directors as well asthe Foundation.

We are each honored to be a part of advancing the local, national and global work of the Koret Foundation. We are also proud of the fact that the Foundation has provided $500 million in grants to non-profit organizations, and the majority of our funding has been dedicated to supporting the vulnerable and disadvantaged, children, families and the elderly. Our purpose is and will remain to support Jewish organizations worldwide, and to improve the quality of life for all the residents of the Bay Area community.

Ms. Koret has voted in full support of 95% of the grant decisions the Foundation has made. We are dismayed that she is now suing in disagreement with these very same decisions. She now makes vicious and unfounded personal attacks on her colleagues.

We believe Ms. Koret is taking these actions in an aggressive attempt to take over the assets of the Foundation. Alarmingly, her behavior has also become increasingly confused and erratic, and it is clear that Ms. Koret is unable to fulfill her duties as a Director.

We, the undersigned, unanimously decided to file a cross-complaint in order to respond swiftly and accurately to Ms. Koret’s false allegations. It is our hope that this matter will be resolved quickly. In the meantime, we assure you that the important humanitarian work of the Koret Foundation will continue, despite the attempted disruption by Ms. Koret.

Sincerely,

Tad Taube
Robert Friend
Koret Foundation Board President
President, Howard Properties of San Francisco
 
 
Michael Boskin
Anita Friedman
Koret Foundation President-Elect and Tully M. Friedman Professor of Economics, Stanford University; Senior Fellow,
Koret Foundation President-Elect
Hoover Institution; and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Richard L. Greene
Richard Atkinson
Founding Partner, Greene, Radovsky, Maloney, Share & Hennigh
President Emeritus, University of California and Chancellor
Emeritus, University of California, San Diego
Abraham Sofaer
 
George P. Shultz Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution

Monomaniacal Single-Issue Voting Run Amok: “DogPAC: I Have a Dog and I Vote!”

Thursday, July 24th, 2014

I’ll tell you, Supervisor Scott Wiener, for one, lives in fear of running afoul of these people, the very same people who vandalize the “no dogs allowed” signs our Feds put up on certain parts of our Federal lands:

Click to expand

Our Feds wonder why Bay Aryans can’t abide the rules the rest of America accepts with no trouble at all…

So look out, little Western Snow Plover. The dog pacs of the world say that you’re nothing special and that, in fact, you don’t even exist – they say there’s no such thing as a Western plover anything. OK fine.

As seen at Ocean Beach near Taraval, 1200mm focal length:

Good luck, little plover.

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

(more…)

Domestic Violencer Gurbaksh Chahal Resigns from Board of RadiumOne: Here’s His Nonsensical Open Letter

Thursday, May 29th, 2014

I’m not sure what Gurbaksh Chahal is talking about with this “exoneration” stuff. The best he could have hoped for was a “not guilty” verdict, and that’s not anything close to exoneration, not at all.

Did he have an agreement allowing himself to be convicted in San Francisco in exchange for something from the Board of RadiumOne? Is any such agreement in writing? Would it even be enforceable? IDK.

Did his father have a heart attack from the stress associated with the assault upon the girlfriend? IDK.

And who’s the primary owner of RadiumOne these days? IDK.

Anyway, here it is, entitled “Greed, Betrayal, and Honesty.”

An Open Letter to the Board of RadiumOne

To the Board of Directors of RadiumOne:

As you all know, I resigned from the board of directors on Tuesday. In light of recent events and to stay transparent and forthright, you give me no other vehicle than an open letter to communicate adequately.

I am deeply disappointed by your actions and decisions over the last few weeks.

All of you were well aware of the legal matter I had been struggling with since August, just as you were aware that of the exaggerated allegations against me. You supported me from the beginning both in person and in writing, and you made it clear that you had every intention of standing by me until justice prevailed.

(more…)