Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

On June 25, 2014

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has more formally confirmed the scope of the responsibility to address historic pesticide use on commercial and industrial properties: namely that a party need not remediate historic pesticide use unless there is a land use change to residences, schools, child care centers and playgrounds. On June 20, 2014, the NJDEP published an additional notice for Response Action Outcomes, the written determination by a Licensed Site Remediation Professional that a remediation is complete, which specifically permits completion of a remediation without investigation of contamination from historic pesticide use. The notice would only apply to contamination from the application of such pesticides to, for example, a former orchard or farm, but not contamination from a discharge caused by the mixing, manufacturing or other handling of such chemicals. NJDEP approval is not required for an LSRP to use this notice.

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Agreements Shortening the Statute of Limitations for Employment-Related Claims

by Richard S. Zackin

Posted in Employment Agreements

On June 25, 2014

On June 19, 2014, in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the validity of a provision in an employment application form by which the job applicant agreed that, if hired, he or she would bring any employment-related claim within 6 months after the claim arose. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated because of a disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) and in retaliation for having filed a workers compensation claim. The Appellate Division held that because the plaintiff brought these claims 9 months after his termination they were barred by the 6-month limitations period in the application form even though they were brought well within the 2-year statute of limitations period otherwise applicable to these types of claims.

Carving Out State Protections in Patent Enforcement

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On June 25, 2014

We have previously posted on proposed federal and state legislation aimed at addressing the toll of patent troll litigation on the U.S. economy. To date, twenty-five states have passed or are considering legislation aimed at curbing bad-faith patent assertion through state law, either based in consumer protection or through laws directed at bad business practices. From Vermont, one of the first states to adopt such legislation, MPHJ Technology Investments LLC (“MPHJ”), an alleged patent troll, seeks the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the issue of federal patent law preemption.

AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings – Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response Persuades PTAB Denial of IPR

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in Patent

On June 24, 2014

In accordance with the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act, a patent owner may at his/her option file a preliminary response to a third-party petition requesting inter partes review (IPR) of a patent. Through the first quarter of 2014, about 55 percent of patent owners opted to file preliminary responses to IPR petitions, while 45 percent of patent owners opted instead either to expressly waive or file no preliminary response.

New York Legislators PASS Extension of State Brownfield TAX CREDITS

by David J. Freeman

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On June 23, 2014

In the waning hours of this year’s legislative session, the New York State Assembly and Senate have passed identical bills extending the sunset date for tax credits under the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program from December 31, 2015 to March 31, 2017. To qualify for such credits, sites must obtain their Certificates of Completion from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) by the sunset date.

Rule Amendments Update: Standing Committee Approves Proposed Changes

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On June 19, 2014

On May 29-30, 2014, the Judicial Conference’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Standing Committee”) met and approved the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (For background information on the proposed amendments, see our previous blog posts from May 27, 2014, February 10, 2014, and May 6, 2013.) The Standing Committee approved the entire slate of proposed amendments, including changes to the scope of discovery, as defined in Rule 26(b)(1), and changes to the standard to be applied by courts when imposing curative measures or sanctions for the spoliation of electronically stored information, as per Rule 37(e). Before approving the proposed amendments, the Standing Committee made several minor revisions, including changes to the proposed Committee Notes to Rules 26 and 37 (the meeting minutes setting forth the precise changes were not available as of writing). The Agenda Book from the Standing Committee’s meeting is available.

Alice is Not in Wonderland: Generic Computers and Abstract Ideas Don’t Mix

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Patent

On June 19, 2014

District courts have been abuzz with accused infringers asserting invalidity based on ineligible subject matter under section 101. This is a result of evolving jurisprudence developed by the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court over the last few years. Today, that continued with the Supreme Court unanimously holding in Alice Corp. Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) that, for claims drawn to an abstract idea, “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”

USPTO Cancels Washington Redskins’ Trademark Registrations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On June 18, 2014

Earlier today, six trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins football team were cancelled on the basis that they are disparaging. In the long-awaited decision of Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) found that the petitioners had shown “by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS to be disparaging in connection with [the football team’s] services” during the time period when registration was sought.

NJ District Courts Bar Defendants’ Indefiniteness Argument During Claim Construction Because Not Alleged in Invalidity Contentions

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Patent

On June 17, 2014

We previously reported that New Jersey District Court Judges will limit a patent infringement defendant’s discovery to the claims and defenses identified in its Invalidity Contentions served under Local Patent Rule 3.3. For the same reasons, a defendant may be barred from taking certain positions during claim construction. In an opinion issued last week, Judge Jose L. Linares held in Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & FCB I LLC v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., No. 12-3084 (JLL) that a defendant that does “not raise an indefiniteness defense in its invalidity contentions . . . cannot seek a determination that the patents-at-issue are invalid for indefiniteness through claim construction.”

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Supreme Court Declines to Expand the Scope of Indirect Infringement Liability in View of Federal Circuit’s Muniauction Ruling

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On June 16, 2014

The United Supreme Court has been a “hot bench” for patent cases. On the same day, it issued two unanimous decisions reversing the Federal Circuit relating to claim definiteness and inducement infringement, the former of which we previously discussed. In the latter, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. No. 12-786, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a party cannot be liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) unless there is direct infringement in 35 U.S.C. §271(a). The Court in dicta also suggested that the Federal Circuit may wish to reconsider its prior decision, Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (2008), which held that a party–who does not perform all the method steps–cannot be liable for direct infringement in §271(a) unless it controls or directs another party to complete the other steps.