Gibbons Law Alert
The Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on whether to hear an appeal from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai Technologies Inc. et al v. Limelight Network, Inc. on induced infringement. This is a very closely watched case for the software industry, but may have far reaching implications in the pharmaceutical field as well.
As predicted, the Supreme Court of the United States announced today that it will address the constitutionality of President Obama’s purported “recess” appointments of Members to the National Labor Relations Board. The Supreme Court’s decision, which could invalidate hundreds of Board decisions made during the past two years, is expected by July 2014.
In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an arbitrator’s decision that an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes, constituted an agreement to participate in class arbitration. While at first blush this appears to be a departure from Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., it is not. Oxford Health says more about limited judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision than it does about the permissibility of class arbitration.
Last week, in Gary Friedrich Enters., LLC v. Marvel Enters., Inc., the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Gary Friedrich, who created the comic book super hero “Ghost Rider,” ruling that Friedrich could maintain his lawsuit against Marvel Enterprises Inc. regarding his ownership rights in the character.
Employers are reminded that the Federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new model COBRA election notices for single employer health plans aligned with Patient Protection Affordability Care Act (“PPACA”) requirements. Under COBRA (the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act), employees who experience a qualifying event, such as a loss of employment, are able to continue coverage under the employer’s group health plan for themselves and qualified beneficiaries by paying the COBRA premium. The new model notices are available on the DOL website in both English and Spanish.
Over thirty years ago, the USPTO awarded the first gene patent (US 4,447,538) and the Supreme Court held that biological inventions were subject to patent protection. Since then, tens of thousands of U.S. “gene” or DNA related patents have issued. However, there has been much uncertainty over the patentability of such inventions as of late.
Land use lawyers play a very important role in the building process in New Jersey. Navigating all of the litigation hurdles that can come up while the project progresses, from conception to development, requires specific skills, knowledge, and strategy. Land use attorneys are heavily involved in actual project development, whether the client is a private party, local government, or state agency. It is important to stay up-to-date on the various types of land use litigation scenarios that can arise.
Last month, we reported on seed giant, Monsanto’s Supreme Court victory involving the question of patent exhaustion with regard to its sale of seed incorporating its patented seed technologies. On Monday, June 10, Monsanto appeared to emerge victorious from another litigation related to its seed technology and business when the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that a coalition of organic farmers and seed sellers had no standing to seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to Monsanto’s patented seed technologies.
For years, the average person who heard the phrase “knock offs” would immediately think of counterfeit versions of brand name luxury goods. While counterfeiters continue to target those types of goods, they are by no means the most nefarious or sophisticated category of counterfeiters. Counterfeiters have effectively targeted almost every type of consumer product imaginable, including the drugs and medical diagnostic devices that consumers rely on for their health and safety.
In National Industries Group (Holding) v. Carlyle Investment Management LLC, Delaware’s Supreme Court unanimously held that a valid forum selection clause is dispositive in determining which court has jurisdiction over disputes arising under the contract. Even if a foreign corporation is party to the contract, Carlyle holds that any considerations weighing in favor of applying the doctrine of international comity do not override an otherwise valid forum selection clause.