Gibbons Law Alert

Second Circuit Holds That CERCLA’s “Act of War” Defense Shields Owners and Tenants from Cleanup Liability for Dust Created By Towers’ Destruction on 9/11

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On May 12, 2014

In the first decision of its kind, the Second Circuit on May 2, held that the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center were “acts of war” for purposes of the affirmative defense for such acts contained in the onerous liability provision of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Accepting the arguments raised by Gibbons and other firms representing the owners and tenants of the buildings (and the airlines whose planes were hijacked), the Court found that even though they were not committed by uniformed military forces of a nation-state, the attacks were nevertheless acts of war for CERCLA purposes (though not necessarily in other legal contexts) because they (1) were “indistinguishable from military attack in purpose, scale, means, and effect,” (2) were recognized as acts of war by both the President and Congress, and (3) “wrested from the defendants all control over the planes and the buildings, obviated any precautions or prudent measures defendants might have taken to prevent contamination, and located sole responsibility for the event and the environmental consequences on fanatics whose acts the defendants were not bound by CERCLA to anticipate or prevent.”

It Ain’t that Obvious to Try

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On May 9, 2014

In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms Inc., the Federal Circuit followed previous precedent in holding that the combination of compounds is not “obvious to try” if unexpected properties are supported by evidence. The patent-at-issue was directed to an antihypertension drug, Tarka®, which is the combination of an angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitor (such as trandolapril or quinapril, both double-ring compounds) and a calcium channel blocker. The jury found that the patent had not been proven invalid and defendant, on appeal, argued that “if a combination of classes of components is already known, all selections within such classes are obvious to try . . . .” The Federal Circuit found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict that obviousness had not been proved by clear and convincing evidence because of the unpredicted “longer-lasting effectiveness” achieved with the drug.

In the Limelight: Induced Infringement Issues Retakes Center Stage

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On May 8, 2014

On April 30, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Limelight Networks, Inc., v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-786. We previously reported on the Federal Circuit’s twin en banc opinions in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., and McKesson Techs. Inc. v. Epic Sys. Corp., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012), finding inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even when a single actor was not liable for direct infringement. Both Limelight and Epic petitioned the Supreme Court for review, but the Epic case subsequently settled.

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Downwind States Breathing Room Under the Clean Air Act

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On May 7, 2014

On April 29, 2014, in EPA, et al v. EME Homer City Generation, LP, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the US Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and its controversial “Transport Rule” which curbed nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions in 27 upwind states. The Supreme Court held it was appropriate to defer to EPA’s expertise in crafting a method of implementing the Clean Air Act’s (“CAA”) “Good Neighbor” provision to reduce pollution from upwind states onto their downwind neighbors.

Adverse Inference Instruction Warranted For Insurer’s Breach of Retention Policy

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On May 7, 2014

It should come as no surprise that litigants continue to ignore such basic discovery obligations as the duty to preserve potentially relevant documents once litigation is reasonably anticipated. A recent case out of the Northern District of New York exemplifies the importance of patience in establishing a record of discovery abuses, including data deletion, before seeking sanctions to address such situations.

“School’s Out For Summer”: Legal Issues Impacting Employers Who Engage Summer Interns

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Wage and Hour

On May 6, 2014

With summer fast-approaching, employers who plan on utilizing summer interns should be aware of two issues that can have serious legal implications. The first applies to employers who engage, or are considering engaging, unpaid interns ─ when is an unpaid intern in fact an “employee” legally entitled to wages? The second issue applies to both paid and unpaid interns ─ do the discrimination laws protect interns from adverse employment actions based on their protected class status? Consideration of the these questions before “intern season” begins can avoid problems down the road and prevent expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Supreme Court Reestablishes Standard for Attorneys’ Fees Under §285

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On May 5, 2014

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health and Fitness issued a ruling that reestablishes the previous standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in the event of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. In its opinion, the Court held that a case should be considered “exceptional” when it “is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position … or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” The Court instructed that this determination should be made on a “case-by-case” basis “considering the totality of the circumstances.”

Eleventh Circuit Holds That Complaint for Declaratory Relief is “Up to the Task” of Satisfying the $5 Million Jurisdictional Amount for CAFA Removal

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 2, 2014

Recently, in South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a class action complaint seeking only declaratory relief may be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), because the class members would be eligible to recover more than $5 million — the “amount in controversy” threshold for federal jurisdiction under CAFA — if such relief were granted. Central to the court’s holding was that the “amount in controversy” is an estimate of the value of what is at stake in the litigation, and not a precise measurement of plaintiffs’ likely recovery. In affirming the removal of a complaint seeking only declaratory relief under CAFA, the Eleventh Circuit offered useful insight on the burden of proof for “amount in controversy” purposes.

Upcoming Gibbons Institute Event – “USPTO Patent Post-Issuance Proceedings Under the America Invents Act” – May 6

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On May 1, 2014

On Tuesday, May 6, the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology will host, “USPTO Patent Post-Issuance Proceedings Under the America Invents Act: Considerations Impacting the Healthcare and Technology Sectors,” at 5:00 pm in the Metropolitan Room of the Newark Club. In-house patent counsel from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, IBM, and Alcatel-Lucent are among the featured panelists.

Clouds on the Horizon: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Aereo

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Copyright

On April 30, 2014

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al., v. Aereo, Inc., No. 12-451, a copyright action whose outcome could dramatically shape the future of television and cloud computing. Aereo is an internet start-up that uses arrays of dime-sized, customer-specific antennas to stream and store on-demand, over-the-air television, likening its technology as an alternative to an individual using, for example, an antenna and DVR to legally capture and record over-the-air content for private viewing. Fearing the loss of their intellectual property rights and lucrative retransmission fees, a consortium of broadcasters promptly sued Aereo for copyright infringement in March 2012 in the Southern District of New York. The broadcasters sought a preliminary injunction against Aereo, arguing that Aereo’s service amounted to thinly veiled public performances, and therefore, constituted copyright infringement. The SDNY, and subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, both ruled in favor of Aereo, citing the 2008 Second Circuit Cablevision case (Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. N.Y. 2008)), which established the legality of using hosted DVRs to store and replay content to individual subscribers.