Gibbons Law Alert
With the importance of Intellectual Property to a company’s bottom line, maximizing that value continues to command a prominent role. “Monetizing” an IP asset, such as a patent, is typically done by licensing, where the patent owner, or licensor, and the party wishing to use the patented technology, the prospective licensee, negotiate conditions and terms of use of the patented technology.
On the weekend of June 24-26, 2011, the New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education (“NJICLE”) in cooperation with the New Jersey State Bar Association (“NJSBA”), and New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association, held its annual Environmental Law Section Forum Weekend (“the Forum”). Taking place in Avalon, New Jersey, the Forum featured three days of seminars covering various hot-button environmental topics including, Funding for Remediating Sites, Vapor Intrusion, the LSRP Program, Non-Governmental Organizations’ Perspectives on Issues and Resolutions, the well-known NJDEP v. Occidental case also referred to as the Lower Passaic River litigation, Climate Change, and rounded out the weekend with two programs on Ethical Issues including Alternative Fee Arrangements and Multi-Party Settlements.
The 2011 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business features 10 Gibbons practice areas and 18 individual attorneys ranked in the top tiers. The firm’s Employment and Labor Law Department and two of its attorneys in this area were ranked among the leaders in the state. 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.
The 2011 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business features 10 Gibbons practice areas and 18 individual attorneys ranked in the top tiers. The firm’s Intellectual Property Department and two of its attorneys in this area were ranked among the leaders in the state. 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. Chambers and client testimonials, excerpted from this year’s guide, include the following on the Gibbons Intellectual Property Department: “This team owes its reputation to the exceptional depth of experienced practitioners it harbors, including former in-house counsel and a swelling number of attorneys from larger, New York IP teams. ‘The firm has invested heavily in building its IP practice and is well placed to handle work of any complexity. They are very good value for money and incredibly responsive.’”
On June 22, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published proposed rule changes in the Federal Register, which, if enacted, will dramatically accelerate the timeframes for union representation elections. One day earlier, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (“DOL”) published proposed rules to narrow the interpretation of the term “advice” as it pertains to the persuader reporting requirements set forth within Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”). Together, these proposed changes create new burdens for employers who wish to communicate with employees about collective bargaining and workplace unionization. If enacted, the practical result of these proposed changes (whether intended or not) is that they will create tactical advantages for organized labor that will in turn help unions win an increased number of representation elections.
On April 27, 2011, the Court denied Defendant Kolon Industries, Inc.’s (“Kolon”) motion for sanctions against E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) for alleged spoliation of four employees’ e-mail accounts and documents in litigation regarding trade secret misappropriation, theft of confidential information and other related business torts. E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09cv58, 2011 U.S. Dist. (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2011). In essence, the Court concluded there was no spoliation because DuPont’s efforts to implement and update litigation hold notices – as well as the company’s commitment to its electronic discovery obligations – were reasonable.
Publicly traded employers should be aware that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) recently adopted Final Rules implementing the whistleblower program under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act”). Consistent with the Final Rules, which become effective on August 12, 2011, employers should not interfere with an employee’s efforts to communicate with the SEC or take any adverse actions against an employee for exercising his or her rights under the whistleblower program. In addition, employers should have clear policies in place for employees to be able to report any perceived violations of federal securities laws and employees should be trained on the procedures for reporting any such violations. The Act creates a private right of action for whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation and remedies include reinstatement, double back pay with interest, litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
On Monday, January 3, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register, 76 Fed. Reg. 5,370 (Jan. 31, 2011), a Notice of Opportunity for Public Input on the Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion Component to the Hazard Ranking System (the “HRS”). Should this proposal become a rule it would add another contamination pathway to analyze in connection with listing sites on the National Priorities List (the “NPL”).
In a unanimous 8-0 concurrence (CJ Roberts took no part), Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. (2011) (Decided June 9, 2011), the Supreme Court approved the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit’s long standing rule that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove a patent invalid. In unequivocal language, the Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 282 “requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Slip Op. at 1.
The Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (the “New Jersey WARN Act”), may apply not only to the direct employer, but also to parent and affiliated companies if certain factors are present. In DeRosa v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division concluded that, “in determining single-employer status under the New Jersey WARN Act, [] courts should apply the five-factor test” applicable to its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the federal WARN Act). Those factors, set forth at 20 C.F.R. 639.3(a)(2) are:”(i) common ownership, (ii) common directors and/or officers, (iii) de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, and (v) the dependency of operations.” The appellate court left open the possibility that other tests may also apply, such as the common law standard for piercing the corporate veil and the integrated enterprise or integrated employer tests.