Gibbons Law Alert

Did You Submit an IDS During Reexamination? Does It Matter?

Posted in Patent

On November 5, 2012

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit in Belkin Int’l, Inc. v. Kappos, 2012-1090, published an important decision potentially limiting the scope of both ex-parte and inter-partes reexaminations. Traditionally during reexamination, practitioners submit information disclosure statements (IDS) to the Patent Office disclosing patents and printed publications with the understanding that the examiner would consider those references in relation to the claims subject to reexam. Very often, if the references were properly submitted, the examiner would record that the references were considered, but would not apply the references against the claims. The benefit to the patent owner is that this could create a heavy burden for subsequent defendants to show that the claims were invalid in view of this prior art. Belkin v. Kappos may change this practice and understanding.

NJ Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument on COAH Third Round Affordable Housing Regulations

by Jennifer P. Smith

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On October 26, 2012

On November 7, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument as to whether the latest regulations adopted by the Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”) are valid. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the decision will have a far-ranging impact on the future of affordable housing in New Jersey and is being watched closely by developers, municipalities and public interest groups.

N.J. Court Finds No “Temporary Taking” During Abandoned Condemnation Proceeding

by Paul M. Hauge

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On October 25, 2012

A New Jersey Appellate Court ruled against several landowners in Long Branch who sought compensation for losses they allegedly suffered during the pendency of a condemnation action that the city eventually abandoned. In the absence of an actual “declaration of taking,” the Court held in its October 16 opinion, the landowners were not entitled to compensation.

District of New Jersey Stays Pay-For-Delay Cases Pending High Court’s Decision in K-Dur

by Christopher Walsh

Posted in Antitrust / Patent

On October 24, 2012

Defendants in reverse-payment actions pending in the Third Circuit (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) take note: in In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation the Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J., of the District of New Jersey has stayed several class-action litigations challenging the legality of certain reverse-payment settlement agreements between Wyeth and generic drug manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals, pursuant to which Wyeth allegedly paid Teva to delay its marketing of a generic counterpart to Wyeth’s Effexor XR drug.

Tim Tebow Time in the Trademark Office . . . .

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Trademarks

On October 24, 2012

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) recently published for opposition the mark TIM TEBOW. The applicant for the mark in these various goods and services is XV Enterprises LLC of Denver, Colorado, who has indicated that Tim Tebow, the two-time Heisman Trophy winner and New York Jets quarterback (formerly with the Denver Broncos), has consented to the applications.

New York Expands Scope of Permissible Deductions From Employee Wages

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Wage and Hour

On October 23, 2012

Effective November 6, 2012, amendments to Section 193 of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) will expand the list of items that private sector employers may deduct from employee paychecks to include, among other things, repayment of pay advances and overpayment of wages. Employers will welcome this amendment to the current version of the law, which limits permissible deductions only to those made for United States bonds, insurance premiums, pension contributions, charitable donations, and payments due to labor organizations (such as union dues).

Broader Coverage May Still Be No Coverage At All: The First Department’s Application of the Prior Pending Claim Exclusion

by John T. Wolak

Posted in Insurance

On October 23, 2012

The recent decision by New York’s Appellate Division, First Department in Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., serves as a grim reminder to insureds to pay careful attention at the time of policy renewal to existing demands from third parties, applicable terms and conditions of expiring and renewal policies, differences in the scope of coverage, and appropriate disclosures. Those who do not run the risk of foregoing the insurance they thought they had without even realizing it.

Florida Joins the Growing Number of States That Have Adopted Specific Rules Addressing Electronic Discovery

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On October 22, 2012

Effective September 1, 2012, Florida joined the long list of states that have adopted specific rules of procedure governing electronic discovery, which follows the July 5, 2012, announcement by the Supreme Court of Florida of its proposed amendments to seven civil procedure rules aimed at addressing the specific dilemmas facing litigants when e-discovery is sought. Florida’s Supreme Court approved and adopted the amendments in a formal opinion issued on July 5, 2012. While these amendments generally mirror the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure first adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 2006, they diverge from the Federal Rules in some critical areas.

USPTO Extends Deadline for Commenting on First Inventor to File Provisions of the AIA to November 5, 2012

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On October 19, 2012

On July 26, 2012, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed examination guidelines to implement the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) provisions of the AIA effective March 16, 2013. The notices set an initial comment deadline date of October 5, 2012. In response to requests for additional time to submit comments, the USPTO recently extended the comment deadline date to November 5, 2012.

Broken Record? Maybe, But Even Government Entities Cannot Escape the Failure to Preserve

by Jeffrey L. Nagel

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Litigation Preparedness and Strategies

On October 19, 2012

Obtaining electronic discovery from a city or municipality in civil litigation can be a slow process. But, in DMAC LLC and Fourmen Construction, Inc. v. City of Peekskill, plaintiffs’ task was made impossible because of the City of Peekskill’s failure to implement a “formal e-mail retention policy,” leaving it up to the “sole discretion” of City staff and elected officials whether to retain or delete their e mails. When the City and other defendants were sued in 2009 for stopping a real estate development project that began back in 2007, allegedly for political reasons, that lack of any e-mail retention policy came back to haunt the defendants.