Gibbons Law Alert
At the Gibbons Second Annual Employment & Labor Law Conference last month, one panel discussion focused on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) recent activity and enforcement priorities. Among the panelists were Corrado Gigante, Director of the Newark Area Office of the EEOC, and Gibbons Directors, Christine Amalfe, Kelly Ann Bird and Susan Nardone.
The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) prohibits internet service providers from disclosing the “content” of electronic communications. What constitutes “content” of an electronic communication? It may be easier to rephrase the question: What doesn’t constitute content? According to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the answer is: very little.
We have reported extensively on the pending Intellectual Property Exchange International (“IPXI”), the world’s first proposed exchange for licensing intellectual property. In an email blast sent Wednesday morning, Ian McClure, the Director at IPXI, indicated that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) concluded an eight-month business review of IPXI and issued a Business Review Letter (“BRL”) that highlighted IPXI’s benefits and efficiencies. Importantly, according to IPXI, the DoJ declined to take any enforcement position against the IPXI at this time, as it did not know if IPXI’s activities would raise competitive concerns after operating. The BRL noted several benefits to the IPXI model, including increased licensing efficiency, sublicense transferability and greater transparency.
Online resellers, used book stores, art galleries, and museums, among others, apparently can now breathe a sigh of relief and continue to display and resell goods originally sold or manufactured outside of the U.S., without the specter of a potential copyright infringement action looming on the horizon. Last week, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 6-3 vote, held that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyright-protected work lawfully made abroad. Under copyright law, the “first sale” doctrine states that “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title . . . is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” 17 U.S.C. § 109(a).
Disputes can arise when a design professional prepares plans for an owner and the owner then uses those plans without compensating the architect. In H2L2 Architects/Planners, LLC v. Tower Investments, Inc., a case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court considered the pleading requirements for unpaid architects to assert claims for payment against owners/developers for architectural design and drawings under federal law.
In a decision that gives the green light to an important component of the Christie Administration’s “Common Sense Principles” approach to regulation, the Appellate Division has upheld the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) “waiver rule,” which permits the department to waive strict compliance with many of its regulations in defined circumstances. Full implementation of the rule will have to wait, however, as the Appellate Court invalidated a variety of forms and guidance documents that NJDEP had posted on its website without going through the normal rulemaking process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
New York City has expanded the scope of its Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) to prohibit job discrimination based upon a job applicant’s status as unemployed. The amendments to the NYCHRL define the term “unemployed” to mean someone “not having a job, being available for work, and seeking employment.” The amendments, which will become effective on June 11, 2013, are groundbreaking in that they make New York City the first jurisdiction in the United States to provide a private right of action for discrimination based on an applicant’s “unemployed” status. If successful in pursuing such claims, denied job applicants may recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well as their attorneys’ fees and costs. In light of this, New York City employers should immediately begin preparing for these coming changes by reviewing their hiring practices, as well as their job advertisements and postings.
Parties to patent infringement actions heavily rely on experts to explain their “case.” The finder of fact, whether judge or jury, often views them as detached guides who truly understand the often esoteric subject technology, or other issues, given the expert’s credentials. Patent issues such as infringement, claim construction, validity, enforceability and damages, which are critical to a case, may rise or fall on these experts. Accordingly, and despite their “expert” status, there is no shortage of considerations surrounding them.
In In re Baby Products Antitrust Litigation, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s approval of a $35.5 million class action settlement, finding it unreasonable that only $3 million of the settlement fund was to be distributed to class members. This marked the first time the Third Circuit has addressed the issue of cy pres distributions in class action settlements, and will likely lead district courts to subject class action settlements involving cy pres distributions to greater scrutiny.
We reported last week on the discovery limitations under United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) guidelines as they pertain to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. On Wednesday, in Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that discovery is not allowed in inter partes re-examinations. The case stemmed from Abbott’s motion to quash two subpoenas duces tecum issued by Cordis which sought documents for use in a pending IPR re-examination. Id. at 2. In the underlying action, Cordis sued Abbott in the District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of two of its patents directed to drug-eluting stents. Id. at 3. The PTO agreed to inter partes re-examination of the patents and by office action, the examiners found both patents obvious. Id. at 3-4.