Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

Legislators Propose Framework To Reform Patent Eligibility Under Section 101

by

Posted in Biotech / Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On May 2, 2019

On April 17, 2019, Senators Chris Coons and Thom Tillis, and Representatives Doug Collins, Hank Johnson, and Steve Stivers unveiled a framework to reform 35 U.S.C. §101. Section 101 of the Patent Act currently makes patentable “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Although the statute is relatively permissive, courts have limited patentable subject matter beyond the statutory mandate by creating judicial exceptions. Under these exceptions as articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” The proposed framework seeks to address these exceptions to patent eligible subject matter through statute versus an ever-growing list of case law. Under the lawmakers’ proposed framework, reformed Section 101 would: Keep existing statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof. Eliminate, within the eligibility requirement, that any invention or discovery be both “new and useful.” Instead, simply require that the invention meet existing statutory utility requirements. Define, in a closed list, exclusive categories of statutory subject matter which alone should not be eligible for patent protection. The sole list of exclusions might include the following categories, for example: Fundamental scientific principles Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature Pure...

NYC Council Passes Legislation Barring Pre-employment Marijuana Testing

by

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On April 16, 2019

On April 9, 2019, the New York City legislature passed legislation that would amend Section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code to prohibit employers from testing job applicants for marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) – the active ingredient in marijuana. Specifically, the law states, “it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or agent thereof to require a prospective employee to submit to testing for the presence of any tetrahydrocannabinols or marijuana in such prospective employee’s system as a condition of employment.” The legislation creates an exception for individuals who apply to specifically defined roles; such as police officers or peace officers, those requiring a commercial driver’s license, those requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients, or other vulnerable persons, and those with the “potential to significantly impact the health or safety of employees or members of the public.” Furthermore, the law would not apply to drug testing that is required pursuant to: (a) regulations promulgated by the federal department of transportation; (b) federal contracts; (c) a federal or state law, regulation, or order that requires drug testing of prospective employees for purposes of safety or security; or (d) a collective bargaining agreement. Lastly, it should be noted that the bill does not bar marijuana testing...

Gibbons Real Property Department Attorneys Represent Pharmaceutical Company in Cambridge Lease

by

Posted in Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On April 12, 2019

Gibbons attorneys Russell B. Bershad and Nicole E. Taplin, Directors in the Real Property Department, are representing Bayer Healthcare LLC in a long-term, large scale lease for laboratory and office space in a new building under construction by MIT in Kendall Square, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Boston Globe featured a story on the lease, which can be found here.

Governor Murphy Signs Stormwater Utilities Bill Into Law

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 29, 2019

On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation authorizing municipalities (and other public entities) to establish utilities for the creation and management of stormwater infrastructure. The legislation, S1073, also known as the Clean Stormwater and Flood Reduction Act (the “Act”), provides that a governing body of a county or municipality may create a stormwater utility “for the purposes of acquiring, constructing, improving, maintaining, and operating stormwater management systems.” The Act also allows municipalities and counties that have established sewerage authorities to request that the authority create a stormwater utility, so that the functions of the utility would be managed by the existing authority rather than the municipality(ies) or county directly. Perhaps most importantly, the Act authorizes stormwater utilities to “charge and collect reasonable fees and other charges” to recoup the costs incurred by the utility in performing stormwater management in the subject locality. Under the Act, charges may be assessed against the owner or occupant, or both, of any real property from which stormwater enters a stormwater management system. The Act also includes provisions allowing municipalities, etc. that establish stormwater utilities to issue bonds to fund stormwater management systems, and imposes reporting requirements on utilities and rulemaking obligations on the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The passage and signing of the...

United States DOL Proposed Update to FLSA Overtime Rules

by

Posted in Wage and Hour

On March 20, 2019

On March 7, 2019, The United States Department of Labor (DOL), announced a proposal to update the overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Under the FLSA, employers are required to pay employees at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, and overtime pay (at 1 ½ times an employee’s regular rate) for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. To be exempt from these requirements, an employee must be paid on a salary basis, at or above a set minimum weekly salary level, and meet certain specific requirements concerning their job duties. In March 2014, President Obama directed the DOL to update and modernize regulations under the FLSA governing overtime exemptions for “white collar” employees (i.e., executive, administrative and professional employees). After receiving more than 270,000 comments, in May 2016, the DOL issued a final rule, substantially increasing the minimum salary levels for the overtime-exempt classifications, from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $913 per week ($47,476 per year), and incorporating mechanisms to adjust the salary level in the future (“2016 Rule”). Under the 2016 Rule, the salary level needed to satisfy the highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption (which includes a less stringent “duties” test), was set at $134,004 (increased from the $100,000 threshold in effect since...

Recent NLRB Decision Helps Employees, Hurts Unions

by

Posted in Labor

On March 11, 2019

On March 1, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in United Nurses and Allied Professionals (Kent Hosp.), 367 NLRB No. 94 (2019) addressing the rights of individuals in collective-bargaining units who are subject to union-security requirements and elect not to be union members. The Board held that unions cannot charge these individuals for lobbying activities because such activities are not needed for unions to perform their statutory representational duties (i.e., collective-bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment). Additionally, the NLRB held that unions must provide these individuals with independent verification that the financial information it shares with them about union expenditures to justify their non-member charges has been properly audited. The decision came on the heels of a memorandum issued by the Board’s General Counsel, which addressed unions’ duties to notify employees in collective-bargaining units of their right to be non-members, pay reduced charges, and revoke dues authorization checkoffs on their specific anniversary and/or contract expiration dates. The union in Kent Hosp. represented a group of registered nurses. Some of those nurses resigned their union membership and objected to the union charging them for lobbying activities. Such individuals are sometimes referred to as Beck objectors in light of a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Commc’ns Workers v....

The Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Accident Continues to Cause Ripples: Texas Supreme Court Holds That Defense Costs are Not Liabilities Under Insurance Policy

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 8, 2019

The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued a decision in which the community of insured parties and insurer parties alike will be interested. The case, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et al. v. Houston Casualty Company, et al., stems from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling-rig accident that has been called, “the largest accidental marine oil spill in U.S. history.” The decision distinguishes between an insured’s “liability” and “expenses” under certain policy language to the consequent of $112 million. The case involved the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company, L.P. (collectively, “Anadarko”) and a group of insurance underwriters led by the Houston Casualty Company (the “Underwriters”). Anadarko was a 25% minority interest holder in the Macondo Well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. Anadarko reached a settlement agreement with BP under which Anadarko agreed to provide its 25% interest and to pay $4 billion to BP in exchange for a release and indemnity against all other liabilities arising out of the accident. Anadarko’s legal fees and defense expenses were not included in the settlement agreement, and Anadarko sought these fees and expenses from the Underwriters pursuant to its “energy package” insurance policy. The policy included a $150 million excess liability coverage limit per occurrence that was further limited by a...

Settlors Beware: A Recent NJ District Court Decision Has the Potential to Have Far Reaching Impacts on Parties Entering into Settlements Under CERCLA

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 6, 2019

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey may throw a new wrinkle into the already complex settlement process under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Specifically, the decision addresses the question of what claims are included in the “matters addressed” in a settlement and entitled to contribution protection. On July 23, 2018, in N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Am. Thermoplastics Corp, et al., Judge William H. Walls granted summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendants Carter Day Industries, Inc. (CDI), Combe Fill Corporation (CFC), and Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc. (“CEA”) (collectively, “Carter Day Parties”). Judge Walls held that the Carter Day Parties are entitled to contribution protection from claims for CERCLA costs incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) based on a settlement agreement between the Carter Day Parties and the State of New Jersey, notwithstanding that USEPA was not a party to the settlement. In following, the five-count first amended complaint of the third-party plaintiffs’ Compaction Systems Corporation of Connecticut, Inc. and Compaction Systems Corporation of New Jersey (together, “Compaction”) was dismissed with prejudice. The five counts of the complaint were: i) cost recovery under CERCLA Section 107(a); ii) contribution under CERCLA Section 113(f); iii) a declaratory judgment under...

Another District Court Addresses Viability of “Continuing Misappropriation” Under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act

by

Posted in Trade Secrets

On March 1, 2019

The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) provides a federal cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b). The DTSA applies to any trade secret misappropriation for which any act occurred “on or after the date of the enactment” of the DTSA. See P.L. 114-153 § 2(e). A Missouri district court recently held that the DTSA applies to trade secret misappropriation that continues after the DTSA enactment date (May 11, 2016)—even if the misappropriation began before the enactment date, see Roeslein & Assocs. v. Elgin, Civ. No. 17-1351(JMB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6981, at *36 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2019), adding to mounting precedent concluding the same. In Roeslein, developers of energy production facilities sued one individual (a former employee) and three corporate defendants for violation of the DTSA, among other claims. The corporate defendants moved to dismiss claims asserted against them under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs’ DTSA claims were not cognizable because the plaintiffs failed to allege misappropriation on or after the DTSA’s enactment date. The court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motions, leaving the DTSA claims intact. The Amended Complaint alleged that individual...

Supreme Court Holds That Non-Public Sales are Invalidating Under Post-AIA Section 102

by

Posted in Biotech / Patent / USPTO

On February 1, 2019

In a closely watched case directly addressing open questions after the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), a unanimous Supreme Court (Thomas, J.) held in Helsinn v. Teva that a sale to a third party, despite being confidential, nevertheless triggered the long-standing meaning of “on sale” under §102(a). Gibbons previously reported on this much anticipated decision. As background, Helsinn owns patents directed to reducing the likelihood of a serious side effect of chemotherapy treatment. Almost two years before applying for a patent, Helsinn and a third party entered into a license agreement and a supply and purchase agreement. The agreements were publicly announced, but required the third party “to keep confidential any proprietary information received under the agreements.” The Federal Circuit held that because the sale between Helsinn and the third party was publicly disclosed, the on-sale bar applied. Before enactment of the AIA, 35 U.S.C. §102(b) barred the patentability of an invention that was “patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent.” By enacting the AIA, Congress amended §102 to bar the patentability of an “invention [that] was patented, described in a printed publication, or...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories