Pyramid Plastics, LLC v. Roundhouse Products, Inc.

Good Law
130 F. App'x 162
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 2005No. 03-56203; D.C. No. CV 01-4825 NM (MANx)California304 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pyramid Plastics, LLC (“Pyramid”) and Roundhouse Products, Inc. (“Roundhouse”) filed cross-motions for summary judgment on their indemnification claims pursuant to California Commercial Code § 2312(3) for fees and costs they each incurred as co-defendants in a patent infringement suit brought by Rembrandt Photo Services (“Rembrandt”). The district court denied both motions and entered judgment ordering each party to bear its own expenses in the underlying patent litigation. Only Pyramid appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

California Commercial Code § 2312(3) provides:

Cal. Com.Code § 2312(3) (West 2002). While Roundhouse based its claim for indemnification on the seller’s warranty in the first part of section 2312(3), Pyramid based its claim on the buyer’s warranty in the latter part of section 2312(3).

In the underlying patent infringement suit, Rembrandt sought damages only for the period of time following Pyramid and Roundhouse’s receipt of the March 8,1988, cease-and-desist letter. During this period of time, Pyramid and Roundhouse had equal knowledge of Rembrandt’s claims of ownership and infringement of the patent and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.