FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS No. 14-55306
COMPANY, a California corporation,
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00941-BEN-
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - MDD
Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
SYNTELLECT, INC.,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 15, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Syntellect, Inc. (Syntellect) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Southern California Gas Company (SoCal) apportioning
damages arising from third-party allegations of patent infringement (Katz claims)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
related to automated call-processing services provided by Syntellect (System).
Syntellect argues that the district court misinterpreted this court’s decision on
remand.
Our decision in the prior appeal affirmed the district court’s determination of
liability and remanded for the district court to consider the issue of damages
allocation “in the first instance.” S. Cal. Gas Co. v. Syntellect, Inc., 534 Fed.
App’x 637, 638 (9th Cir. 2013). We held that Syntellect is liable for damages
“stemming from utilization of the ‘System’” and remanded for the district court to
consider the interplay between the nature of Katz claims and the scope of the
indemnity agreement, whether the indemnity agreement limited Syntellect’s
liability to its own actions only, and whether the settlement included more than the
indemnity obligation contemplated. See id. at 638-39.
On remand, the district court complied with our mandate. The court
appropriately considered that the Katz claims accused SoCal of infringing on Katz
patents by offering automated call services, “in some instances in connection with
operators.” The district court permissibly interpreted the indemnity clause
language encompassing “any and all” damages, to conclude that no material issue
of fact regarding indemnity existed, and that the entire settlement amount arose
from and was connected to Syntellect’s infringement.
2
The district court’s decision is supported by its review of the evidence,
including the nature of the Katz claims, the types of calls included in the
settlement, and the expansive indemnity agreement. No material issue of fact was
raised regarding whether Syntellect’s indemnity obligation extends to all damages
included in the settlement. Cf. Peter Culley & Assocs. v. Superior Ct., 10 Cal.
App. 4th 1484, 1497 (1992) (holding that allocation of damages may be
appropriate if the contract limits the party’s indemnity obligation).
AFFIRMED.
3