Yufa v. Tsi, Incorporated
666 F. App'x 889
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Aleksandr L. Yufa owns a multi‑patent portfolio and brought suit alleging infringement of the ’983 patent; the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for TSI.
- The district court found Yufa’s infringement claims "objectively baseless" and awarded TSI $166,364.88 in attorney fees and costs.
- TSI moved to appoint Greyhound IP LLC as a receiver and to compel assignment of Yufa’s Patent Portfolio to satisfy the judgment; the motion was initially denied without prejudice pending appeal.
- After this court affirmed summary judgment, TSI renewed its motion; the district court appointed Greyhound as receiver but declined to order assignment of the patents until a valuation is provided.
- Yufa appealed the appointment of the receiver; the Federal Circuit reviewed under Ninth Circuit abuse‑of‑discretion standards and affirmed the appointment (but not an immediate assignment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court applied correct law for appointing a receiver | Yufa: California receiver statute requires appointment only if in debtor's interest and reasonable; court misapplied law | TSI: Federal Rule 69 defers to state law; California law authorizes receivers to satisfy judgments | Court: District court identified and applied California law correctly |
| Whether appointment was reasonable given Yufa’s interests and pending litigation | Yufa: Appointment not in his interest and not a reasonable method to satisfy judgment | TSI: Yufa lacks financial means aside from patents; receiver is reasonable to satisfy judgment | Court: Appointment was reasonable considering both parties’ interests |
| Whether patents involved in active litigation can be placed in receiver’s hands or assigned | Yufa: Premature because patents are involved in other litigation | TSI: California statute permits receiver to take possession and transfer/sell property even if litigation exists | Court: No authority preventing receiver of property that is involved in active litigation; district court only ordered valuation, not assignment, and may defer assignment |
| Whether district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion | Yufa: Application of standard was illogical/unsupported | TSI: Discretion properly exercised under Ninth Circuit test | Court: No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 382 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (procedural patent matters reviewed under regional circuit law)
- Meritage Homes of Nev., Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 753 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014) (two‑part test for abuse of discretion review)
- Can. Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter, 563 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2009) (Ninth Circuit standard for reviewing receiver appointments)
- Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, 766 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2014) (Rule 66 defers to state law for receiver standards)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (courts assist pro se litigants but assistance has limits)
- Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (limits on accommodating pro se litigants)
- Yufa v. TSI, Inc., [citation="600 F. App'x 747"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment of noninfringement)