Grail Semiconductor v. Mitsubishi Electric CA6

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…