Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Lack of Actual Notice Does Not Defeat Policy Exclusion When Insurer Made Sufficient Efforts to Provide Clear and Direct Notice of New Exclusion to Policyholder

On October 15, 2012

The recent decision in MDC Acquisition Co. v. North River Insurance Co., serves as a reminder of the impact that clear and direct notice of policy changes will have on the scope of available insurance coverage. Although rendered by the Northern District of Ohio, the decision is based upon generally accepted legal principles that apply in most jurisdictions and is noteworthy for both insurers and policyholders.

Patent Marking Under the America Invents Act – Virtual Marking

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On October 15, 2012

As practitioners know, U.S. patent law provides for the recovery of patent infringement damages for a period of time when an infringer has actual or constructive notice of the infringed patent. Actual notice is provided by way of letter or similar mechanism to the infringer after infringement has begun. Constructive notice can be provided by placing the patent number on the patented product. Such constructive notice provides notice to the infringer of the existence of a patent prior to actual notice, thereby extending the time period for recovering damages up to the date the infringement begins.

Third Circuit Affirms Plaintiffs’ Zero-Damages Antitrust Victory, Restricting the Scope of What Constitutes “Reliable” Expert Damages Data

by Kevin R. Reich

Posted in Antitrust

On October 12, 2012

The Third Circuit’s 94-page opinion in antitrust case ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., issued on September 28, 2012, offers something for everyone in its smorgasbord of holdings concerning the law of exclusive dealing, proof of damages, and Article III standing. The opinion is most notable for rejecting the notion that above-cost prices can render an otherwise unlawful exclusive dealing agreement lawful, reinforcing the viability of de facto exclusive-dealing arrangements under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and ratcheting up the gatekeeper role courts play under Daubert.

No Fishing Expeditions Allowed When It Comes to Discovery of Social Media

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On October 12, 2012

A recent decision in California, Mailhoit v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. et al., Civ. No. 11-03892 (D.E. 105, C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012) reiterates the limits to which social media information is discoverable. Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and 34, the Court made clear in the context of a motion to compel that “discovery requests for social networking site content must be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and describe the information to be produced with ‘reasonable particularity.'”

Patent Classification Harmonization

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in USPTO

On October 11, 2012

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) jointly launched the Cooperative Patent Classification System (CPC) and released a finalized set of CPC definitions. The CPC is operational at both the EPO and USPTO. The USPTO and EPO developed the CPC with the collaborative aim of producing a common classification system for technical documents. The CPC brings the promise of transparent and harmonized global classification for patent documents.

CAFC Reverses Inequitable Conduct Finding: Outside The Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Patent

On October 9, 2012

The Federal Circuit recently reversed the Northern District of Georgia’s judgment of unenforceability based on inequitable conduct, in Outside The Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc. Other aspects of the decision are outside the scope of this blog. In reversing, and citing last year’s en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the CAFC reiterated that to establish unenforceability based on inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), a party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) information material to patentability was withheld from the PTO, or material misinformation was provided to the PTO, and that such act was done (2) with the intent to deceive or mislead.

FTC Petitions for Certiorari in Reverse Payments Dispute

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Patent

On October 5, 2012

As we anticipated, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a petition for certiorari yesterday with the Supreme Court in FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the Eleventh Circuit upheld reverse payments (payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry under the scope-of-the-patent approach, i.e., as long as the anti-competitive effects fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent, absent sham litigation or fraud), as lawful. The Second and Federal Circuits follow that approach. In contrast, the Third Circuit has held that such payments are presumptively anti-competitive under the “quick look rule of reason analysis” that may be rebutted by showing that the payments was for something other than delay or that the payment has a competitive benefit, and thereby increases competition.

Environmental Issues a Growing Concern for Companies

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 5, 2012

As companies in the northeast region take advantage of an improving real estate market, in the face of aggressive agency enforcement, and complex environmental programs and policies, the need for environmental counsel to assist with transactions, navigate potential pitfalls, and mitigate future liability, has become essential. In a recent article published by The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, three new Gibbons Directors – William Hatfield, Camille Otero, and David Freeman – discuss the firm’s strategic decision to expand the practice group, the growth of the environmental law market, and how their experience can assist clients in this expanding field.

Third Circuit’s Fair Notice Requirement Protects Defendants from Amended Claims Asserted After Expiration of Statute of Limitations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On October 5, 2012

Affirming the statute-of-limitations-based dismissal of plaintiff Mary Glover’s claims against defendants Mark Udren and Udren Law Offices, the Third Circuit in Glover v. FDIC spoke clearly on the limits of the notice requirement under the relation-back doctrine, holding that Glover’s original pleading failed to provide fair notice of a subsequent claim in an amended complaint.

New Derivation Rule — 37 C.F.R. Part 42

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On October 4, 2012

The PTO recently announced final rules regarding the new derivation proceedings, 37 C.F.R. Part 42, pursuant to the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act. As practitioners are well aware, the AIA will transform the U.S. from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file patent system on March 16, 2013, aligning the U.S. with the European and Japanese systems. For all applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, under the first-to-file system, interference proceedings, which are used to determine “which [of two] part[ies] first invented [a] commonly claimed invention,” will become obsolete. Derivation proceedings will in part replace current interference practice, but will likely be applicable in a much narrower set of circumstances.