Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Federal Circuit Advisory Council Gives Nod to Limited Claims and Prior Art in Patent Suits

Posted in Patent

On July 23, 2013

IP practitioners on both sides of the “v.” should take heed that the Federal Circuit Advisory Council (“the CAFC Council”) has unanimously approved a “Model Order Limiting Excess Patent Claims and Prior Art.” Citing a “[l]ack of discipline” by the asserting party, the CAFC Council recounted that the resulting “superfluous claims and prior art” have contributed to increasing the expense and burden of patent litigation. And rather than dealing with the number of claims and prior art references on an ad hoc basis, as is presently done, the aspirational Model Order sets default numerical limits on the number of asserted patent claims and prior art references.

The USPTO Launches the Global Patent Search Network

by Robert E. Rudnick

Posted in Patent

On July 22, 2013

On July 8, Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), announced on her official blog the launch of the Global Patent Search Network (“GPSN”). The GPSN is the result of a cooperative effort between the USPTO and China’s State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”). Users of the GPSN will be able to search full text Chinese patent documents and English machine translations, thus enabling searches in both English and Chinese. The initial database of documents will include published applications, granted patents, and utility models dated from 2008 to 2011. The database will be periodically updated. In addition, the USPTO anticipates the network will expand to include patent documentation from other foreign intellectual property offices.

So, Too, a DJ Plaintiff May Be Entitled to Attorney Fees in Exceptional Cases

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On July 17, 2013

According to a recent Central District of California decision, a declaratory judgment plaintiff may be entitled to attorney fees if it prevails on non-infringement in a patent case. Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Sorensen Research and Dev. Trust, No. 11-03720, slip op. at 7-8 (C.D.C.A. Jun. 27, 2013). In Homeland, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability in response to a demand letter (and correspondence thereafter) asserting patent infringement. The asserted patent was directed to plastic injection molding, and the accused products were plastic cups. The Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment of no infringement, but denied plaintiff’s motion for invalidity and in fact, granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment of validity. Plaintiff then moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits awards in “exceptional cases” to the “prevailing party,” but, who was the prevailing party?

Somebody’s Watching You — New York Court of Appeals Says State Can Place GPS Device on Employee’s Car, But Can Only Collect Data During Work Hours

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 17, 2013

In its recent 4-3 decision in Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor, the New York Court of Appeals added to the growing body of case law addressing the constitutional implications of global positioning system (GPS) technology. In Cunningham, the Court found that the Department of Labor’s attaching of a GPS device to an employee’s personal car that was used for work purposes fell within the “workplace exception” to the warrant requirement, however, the search as conducted was unreasonable because the car’s location was tracked in the evenings, on weekends, and while the employee was on vacation. Interestingly, the Court suppressed all of the evidence collected by the GPS device, not just the data collected during non-work hours, citing the “extraordinary capacity” of GPS devices to permit “constant, relentless tracking of anything.”

Whither or Wither the A/C Privilege?

by Robert E. Rudnick

Posted in Patent

On July 15, 2013

The attorney-client privilege is one of the most sacrosanct and inviolable, allowing full and frank dialogue between client and counsel. The recent decision in BSP Software LLC v. Motio, Inc., 1-12-cv-02100 (ND Ill. July 9, 2013) DN 141, Order has broad implications for this well-established privilege, and important lessons-learned for when it might be waived.

NFL Scores Big Win Against Websites Offering Counterfeit Merchandise

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On July 12, 2013

On June 28th, U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment in favor of the National Football League® (“NFL®”) against operators of more than 1,997 websites utilizing 1,223 infringing domain names, all of which were offering counterfeit NFL merchandise. In doing so, the District Court awarded the NFL a $273 million judgment against the website operators and injunctive relief.

In Dune Construction Dispute, N.J. Supreme Court Holds that “Just Compensation” in Partial-Takings Cases Must Be Reduced by Value of All Reasonably Calculable Benefits

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On July 12, 2013

When the Borough of Harvey Cedars took a portion of the beachfront property of Harvey and Phyllis Karan to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a protective dune, the Karans lost their view of the ocean, and a court awarded them $375,000 as compensation for the drop in the value of their $1.7 million home. In a momentous decision with important ramifications for shore protection efforts and for a much broader category of eminent domain cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that “just compensation” for the Karans should also have reflected the quantifiable benefits that they received as a result of the improved flood protection provided by the dune.

“100% Pure and Natural” Claims Not Preempted in Putative Class Action Against Tropicana Orange Juice

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 11, 2013

In Lynch v. Tropicana Products, Inc., a Federal District Court in New Jersey refused to toss a putative class action against Tropicana alleging that its “100% pure and natural” claim, and its advertisement showing an orange being “pierced” by a straw ― inferring that the consumer is essentially drinking right from the orange ― is false and misleading.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On July 10, 2013

The generic pharmaceutical industry faced a Catch-22 when a serious adverse reaction arose from use of a generic drug product, and the manufacturer was restrained from unilaterally amending the product label to conform to state requirements, due to the Supreme Court’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011). PLIVA held that state requirements to change a label are pre-empted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act’s prohibition of changing labeling without authorization by the FDA.

Court Denies Direct Access to Computer, Phones, and Email Account Absent a Finding of Improper Conduct or Non-Compliance With Discovery Rules

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 9, 2013

In a recent decision in Carolina Bedding Direct, LLC v. Downen, United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson shed light on the limitations placed on discovery by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the circumstances under which a requesting party will be denied wholesale access to a responding party’s computer, cell phone, and email account. The decision also reinforces that courts are unlikely to question a responding party’s certification of compliance with discovery requests absent a real showing of improper conduct, even if it is shown that the responding party failed to produce its own email and text messages that were later produced by another party.