Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

An Issue of First Impression: Federal Circuit Limits Review of Stay Motions in Connection With Covered Business Method Reviews

On April 2, 2015

On April 1, 2015, The Federal Circuit dismissed JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (“JPMC”) interlocutory appeal of a district court ruling denying a motion to stay pending a covered business method review (“CBMR”). Addressing an issue of first impression, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under §18(b)(2) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to review the district court’s order because JPMC moved for a stay while JPMC’s CBM petition was under review by the USPTO Director and a CBM proceeding had yet to be instituted. In Intellectual Ventures v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) sued JPMC alleging infringement of five patents. JPMC responded by filing a motion to stay pending the results of four CBMR petitions that it was planning to file. Immediately after, JPMC filed two CBM petitions covering only two of the asserted patents.

State Bar of California Revises Proposed E-Discovery Ethics Opinion

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On April 1, 2015

Attorney competence is currently one of the most-discussed issues in e-discovery. Not surprisingly, much attention has been paid to the proposed ethics opinion issued last year by the State Bar of California that addresses an attorney’s ethical duties in the handling of the discovery of ESI. (See e.g., our previous blog post summarizing topics addressed at the Gibbons Eighth Annual E-Discovery Conference.) In response to several critical comments received during the public comment period, the California Bar’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct met in December 2014 and issued a revised version of Proposed Formal Opinion Interim No. 11-0004 (ESI and Discovery Requests). The public comment period for the revised version of the proposed opinion ends on April 9, 2015.

New York State Governor and Legislature Reach Agreement on Reform and Extension of Brownfield Cleanup Program

by David J. Freeman

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On March 31, 2015

Governor Andrew Cuomo and leaders of the New York State Senate and Assembly have reached an agreement with respect to extension and reform of the State’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP), a significant development in view of impending expiration of tax credit eligibility on December 31, 2015. The essential elements of the deal are as follows: All sites currently in the Program, and those which are admitted prior to December 31, 2022, will be eligible for tax credits if they obtain their Certificates of Completion (COCs) by March 31, 2026.

New Jersey Court Invalidates Exaction for Sidewalks

by Howard D. Geneslaw

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On March 30, 2015

In a recent unpublished decision, Jerman v. Township of Berkeley, a New Jersey trial court held invalid an ordinance which required the construction of sidewalks and curbs as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval, or the payment of a fee in lieu of constructing these improvements. The decision serves as a reminder that the legal authority for municipalities to impose exactions is strictly limited as provided by statute, and requires a “rational nexus” between the project and the need for the improvement.

TTAB Rulings May Have Preclusive Effects in District Court Cases

by Paolo A. Strino

Posted in Trademarks / USPTO

On March 26, 2015

In a 7-2 split decision issued on March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rulings may have preclusive effects in subsequent federal district court litigation. The Court ruled that so long as the elements of issue preclusion are met, it is irrelevant that the TTAB is not an Article III court.

U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Pregnant Worker’s Discrimination Case

by Kelly Ann Bird

Posted in Discrimination

On March 26, 2015

In Young v. UPS, the United States Supreme Court reinstated a UPS worker’s pregnancy discrimination lawsuit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, finding that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had applied the wrong standard in upholding UPS’s light-duty-for-injury policy, under which the company refused a light-duty accommodation to a pregnant employee back in 2006. While the Court did not determine whether the employee suffered any actual discrimination, or whether UPS’s policy was impermissible under the PDA – those issues were remanded to the Fourth Circuit – the Court did adopt a modified version of the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas for analyzing pregnancy discrimination claims under the PDA. The Court’s decision in Young is also noteworthy in that it declined to give deference to the EEOC’s July 2014 guidance on pregnancy discrimination, which we have previously discussed, and, in fact, rejected the argument that the PDA creates “an unconditional favored nations status” for pregnant workers.

Supreme Court Upholds Department of Labor’s Authority to Issue Interpretive Rules Without Public Notice or Comment

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Wage and Hour

On March 25, 2015

Rules promulgated by agencies of the federal government can be divided into those which have the force and effect of law and those which are merely “interpretative” or provide general statements of policy concerning the agency’s view of the law. When an agency wishes to promulgate rules having the force and effect of law it must comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by, among other things, publishing the proposed rules in advance, allowing sufficient time for public comment and responding to significant comments received. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) was free to reverse itself about the proper interpretation of the laws over which it has enforcement responsibility without giving notice or allowing public comment of the proposed change. The Court unanimously held that the DOL was free to do so.

New Jersey Supreme Court Says Hypothetical Questions Can’t Save Expert Opinions that Contradict Uncontroverted Facts in Evidence

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On March 23, 2015

In Townsend v. Pierre, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that the net opinion rule bars expert testimony that contradicts uncontroverted factual evidence and further held that the use of hypothetical questions at trial cannot be used to salvage such an opinion. While the net opinion rule is usually formulated as “forbid[ding] the admission into evidence of an expert’s conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data,” Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 583 (2008), the Court definitively stated that the rule also operates to bar expert testimony where the expert rejected as “mistaken” uncontroverted facts in evidence.

Award of Preliminary Injunction to Declaratory Judgment Defendant in the District of Delaware Offers Cautionary Tale in Opposition Strategy

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On March 19, 2015

District Court Judge Sue L. Robinson, U.S.D.J., of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted a rare preliminary injunction to the declaratory judgment defendant in a patent infringement action, highlighting the importance of presenting infringement arguments under both parties’ claim constructions and expert analysis that supports invalidity. CryoLife Inc. v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al., No. 14-559, Dkt. Entry No. 116, Mem. Order. The injunction bars sales of PerClot Topical, CryoLife’s blood-clotting powder product.

NLRB Rules that Attack on Safety of Employer’s Products is Protected Employee Concerted Activity

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Labor

On March 19, 2015

As previously discussed on the Employment Law Alert, the National Labor Relations Board has taken several pro-union actions and issued many pro-union decisions over the last few years that impact union and non-union businesses alike, which recently include issuing the latest “quickie” election rule and increasing protections afforded to union-related communications made through companies’ e-mail systems. In MikLin Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Jimmy John’s, the Board rendered another pro-union decision, a decision which serves to remind all employers to be mindful of the NLRB when considering employee discipline for disloyalty when the allegedly disloyal acts relate to employee dissatisfaction with working conditions.