Grail Semiconductor v. Mitsubishi Electric CA6

Filed 8/21/15 Grail Semiconductor v. Mitsubishi Electric CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GRAIL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., H041454 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 1-07-CV098590)

v.

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP,

Movant and Appellant.

Mishcon de Reya New York LLP (Mishcon), a law firm, appeals from an order denying its motion to intervene in a retrial of damages for breach of a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Mishcon contends that it should have been permitted to intervene as 1 of right, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (b). We find no error and therefore must affirm the judgment. Background The action in which Mishcon seeks to intervene was initiated in 2007 by Grail Semiconductor, Inc. (Grail) against Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi). Grail obtained a jury verdict in its favor, but the trial court determined that

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

the jury had applied the wrong measure of damages, and it therefore granted Mitsubishi’s motion for a new trial on that issue. This court affirmed. (See Grail Semiconductor, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 786 (Grail I).) Meanwhile, a patent infringement action was taking place in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (district court). Grail had sued Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (Renesas) in August 2011 for infringement of its patent for an inductive storage capacitor, U.S. Patent No. 6,642,552, “the ’552 patent.” Once Grail assigned the patent to the receiver, it lost standing to maintain the patent action, and the receiver was substituted as plaintiff. Mishcon had represented Grail in the action between August 2010 and July 2011. On July 15, 2011, Mishcon initiated arbitration proceedings in New York to recover 2 unpaid attorney fees and litigation expenses from Grail. Eventually, those parties settled and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York district court) entered a $2,111,000 judgment for Mishcon. On December 3, 2012 the New York district court appointed a receiver for the purpose of selling the ’552 Patent in order to satisfy the judgment against Grail. In June 2013 the receiver sold the patent to Mishcon for $100. Once Mishcon became the patent owner, Renesas, which had counterclaimed for declaratory relief, sought to join Mishcon as the plaintiff (and as defendant in the counterclaim) so that it