Palmer Luckey Likely Headed for Trial in Oculus Rift Technology Dispute
A Ninth Circuit ruling reversing summary judgment in the case marks a win for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan attorneys Robert Stone and Brian Cannon in Redwood City, California, who represented plaintiff-appellant Total Recall Technologies.
June 15, 2020 at 05:57 PM
4 minute read
Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey is set to go to trial over allegations that he wrongly passed off the company's virtual reality headset as his own invention, after a federal appeals court ruling.
In an unpublished memo decision Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a summary judgment order in favor of Luckey and Oculus and kicked the case, which is now poised to go to trial, back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The ruling marks a win for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan attorneys Robert Stone and Brian Cannon in Redwood City, California, who represented plaintiff-appellant Total Recall Technologies.
Total Recall Technologies, a partnership between two inventors developing immersive 3D technology, asserted that they entered a contract with Luckey to commercialize their 3D headset product. The partnership later sued Luckey and Oculus, claiming that he breached their contract, formed his own company and created the Oculus Rift based on stolen intellectual property, and then sold the company to Facebook.
Ron Igra, one-half of the Total Recall Technologies partnership, brought the suit—without the consent of his partner Thomas Seidl, in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Oculus' counsel at Cooley in Palo Alto, California, and Mayer Brown in New York argued that Total Recall Technologies' partnership agreement required that both members of the partnership needed to approve of decisions such as litigation. Last March, U.S. District Judge William Alsup agreed and granted the VR company's motion for summary judgment.
Cooley's Mike Rhodes declined to comment on the decision.
The Ninth Circuit panel—made up of Ninth Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace and Marsha Berzon and U.S. District Judge Terrence Berg of the Eastern District of Michigan sitting by designation—found that Igra retroactively cured any defect in a timely fashion after Seidl withdrew from the partnership.
"The district court abused its discretion by requiring Thomas Seidl to consent to the action as a condition of ratification," they wrote. "By imposing that condition, the district court compelled Total Recall to keep its same structure and ownership to continue prosecuting the action."
The Ninth Circuit judges said that Igra had "unilateral authority" to control Total Recall's litigation strategy after Seidl's exit. After submitting a declaration consenting to the action and ratifying the filing, "no more was required," the judges wrote.
The court also ruled that Alsup erred when he decided that Igra's ratification of the filing happened too late under the revivor statutes, which mandate that the limitations period will not be tolled for corporations suspended for non-payment of taxes.
"Because Total Recall is not a tax-delinquent corporation, or a suspended corporation for any other reason, the statute of limitations rules under California's corporate revivor statutes do not apply," they wrote.
The ruling concludes the second appeal in the case. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court after finding that Alsup erred when concluding that state law governed the procedural question of whether Luckey and Oculus could challenge Total Recall Technologies' authority to file the lawsuit.
Quinn's Cannon said that they are pleased with the decision and that they can finally move forward to the merits of the case. It's really an underdog story, he said.
"This is a situation of a Facebook subsidiary being built on the ideas and designs of another," he said. "Our clients are entrepreneurs and inventors, but they are obviously not as big as Facebook. So our clients are seeking to go against the biggest player in the field, to some degree, and we've really had to fight to make this happen."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
FTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250