Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Transfers – Recent Decisions ….

by

Posted in Patent

On July 16, 2012

As we previously reported, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act (“AIA”) prohibits plaintiff patent owners from joining multiple, unrelated defendants in a single action. An unintended, yet significant, consequence of this is that patent holders must bring serial litigations when more than one unrelated infringer is implicated. And, with the added possibility of declaratory judgment actions commenced in different venues, there is a real potential to have multiple cases — involving the same patent(s) — scattered across different judicial districts. Beyond the obvious resource concerns, this scenario may increase the risk of conflicting rulings.

Second Circuit Rejects “Novel” Argument That Putative Class Action Plaintiff Has Article III Standing to Sue “Juridically Linked” Defendants Who Did Not Cause Her Any “Injury-In-Fact”

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 16, 2012

In Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., the Second Circuit held that a putative class action plaintiff must allege that each defendant injured her to satisfy Article III’s standing requirement. In so holding, the court explained that a putative class action plaintiff cannot use FED. R. CIV. P. 23’s “juridical link” doctrine to bootstrap the alleged injuries of absent, would-be class members and create Article III standing where none otherwise exists.

Save the Date: Rutgers Pharmaceutical Management Program, July 19-20, 2012

by

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On July 13, 2012

Gibbons P.C. is again proud to announce a two-day program for Pharmaceutical Management at the Rutgers University Blanche and Irwin Lerner Center for Pharmaceutical Studies in Newark, NJ. The program, which is open to the public, includes in-depth presentations relating to topics including intellectual property, regulatory, financial and marketing issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as drug development and the role of biotechnology in pharmaceutical development.

Intellectual Asset Management Ranks Gibbons Among Top IP Law Firms and Practitioners Worldwide

by

Posted in Intellectual Property / Patent

On July 12, 2012

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) ranks Gibbons among the top IP law firms and practitioners worldwide in its guide – IAM Patent Litigation 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Litigators. David E. De Lorenzi, Chair of the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and Sheila F. McShane, a Director in the Department, were two of only five intellectual property lawyers featured as leading individuals in this practice.

Gibbons Labor & Employment Practice Highlighted By Chambers USA

by

Posted in Disability / Labor

On July 10, 2012

The Gibbons Employment & Labor Department, and three of its attorneys, were among the 10 Gibbons practice areas and 20 individual attorneys ranked in the 2012 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers annually rates the nation’s leading business lawyers and law firms through comprehensive interviews with top companies, attorneys, and business executives, plus extensive supplementary research.

Gibbons Intellectual Property Practice Highlighted by Chambers USA

by

Posted in Intellectual Property / Patent

On July 10, 2012

The Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and two of its attorneys, were among the 10 Gibbons practice areas and 20 individual attorneys ranked in the 2012 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers annually rates the nation’s leading business lawyers and law firms through comprehensive interviews with top companies, attorneys, and business executives, plus extensive supplementary research.

Revisiting Hindsight Bias: Mintz v. Dietz & Watson

by

Posted in Patent

On July 9, 2012

In Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, an opinion penned by Chief Judge Rader, a three judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Newman and Dky strongly admonished against the use of impermissible hindsight towards a finding of obviousness. Despite finding that the accused products did not infringe and following a comprehensive analysis of hindsight, the CAFC further held that U.S. Patent No. 5,413,148 (the “‘148 Patent”) was not invalid under § 103.

Texas Federal Court Splits Environmental Claims: CERCLA Claims Remain in Federal Court, State Claims are Remanded to State Court

by

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On June 29, 2012

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in May v. Apache Corporation, 2012 WL 156547 (S.D.Tex. May 1, 2012) issued an interesting decision on the relationship between federal and state environmental claims and where they can be heard. The case has some parallels to a case pending in the New Jersey State court captioned the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et als.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against OT Pay for Pharmaceutical Salespeople

by

Posted in Wage and Hour

On June 25, 2012

In a major victory for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that company sales representatives who promote their employer’s products to doctors and hospitals are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In doing so, the Court resolved a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal over the scope of the “outside salesman” exemption to the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The Court’s holding in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. regarding the scope of this exemption has provided much needed clarity to pharmaceutical companies and employers with similar types of sales forces who have relied – and hope to continue to rely – on the exemption.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.: Federal Circuit Explains Willful Infringement

by

Posted in Patent

On June 20, 2012

Last week, in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion concerning the willful infringement standard articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC (“Seagate”). After affirming the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, appellant Gore filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, challenging the District Court’s willfulness analysis. The Federal Circuit granted Gore’s petition for rehearing en banc for the sole purpose of determining the standard of review applicable to willful infringement.

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