Yes, which is why I simply pointed ~OUTT that the post stating that the judge had IP experience is irrelevant.
Also, this securities case will need to apply the relevant law of the state UOIP in incorporated in Delaware corporate law. A California state court is an odd place to bring a corporate malfeasance cases that hinges on Delaware law.
This ought to have been brought in a Federal District court - whether in California or another state.
However, Federal courts are generally slower than most state courts, so lawyers want to show clients movement so they can keep billing. And filing in a Federal District court in Cali has the greater likelihood that the defendants will move to have the case removed to Federal District court in Delaware, which means the California lawyers may see the client replace them with Delaware lawyers, cutting off their money teat. As a case in Federal court in Delaware will at least require Delaware co-counsel. This is not in the interests of California lawyers - nor would be the travel and lodging expenses to fly Cali lawyers to Delaware, which might cause the clients to decide it is cheaper for them to just move the case to Delaware lawyers.
The proper move for these California clients would have been to file the matter in Federal District court as a diversity case. Federal courts are use to handling ~OUTT-of-state laws and Delaware corporate laws - they get this commonly. They could have filed in a Federal District court in California.
Billy can still move to have this case transferred to a Federal District court - but why would he? He is better off leaving it as a California state court case - for the same reasons Foley and Nanotech left the Florida cases in Florida state courts. Billy can basically say - who cares?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
