CAFC tackles UCL § 17204 in ALLERGAN case

In tackling an element of California state law, the CAFC had jurisdiction pursuant to 1295(a)(1):

Although the patent claims are not presently at issue, they give rise to this court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (stating that this court has jurisdiction “of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States . . . if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title . . . .” (emphases added)). We therefore have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

As to the issue:

Subsequent to the adoption of Proposition 64—a California voter’s amendment that restricted the scope of standing under section 17204—California courts required an additional limitation for a plaintiff to have standing under the UCL: namely, that the party asserting the claim must allege an injury compensable by restitution. As discussed below, the recent California Supreme Court decisions in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) and Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010), make clear that section 17204 only requires that a party allege an injury in fact and that the injury was caused by the defendant. Moreover, section 17204 does not mandate a “business dealings require-ment,” as the defendants argue.