Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

We Produced Privileged Documents; Now What?

On September 7, 2012

The production of a party’s privileged documents is every lawyer’s–and client’s–worst nightmare because it provides additional facts (and avenues for discovery) as well as legal analysis of those facts that may not have existed. In layman’s terms, it is a game changer. A recent decision plays out this very scenario and shows that despite the production of privileged documents, they can be salvaged if the producing party acted properly before and after the disclosure.

Second Circuit Holds That a Post-Disclosure Stock Price Rebound Does Not Per Se Preclude Damages for Alleged Federal Securities Fraud

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Appellate / Securities

On September 6, 2012

Recently, the Second Circuit vacated a District Court’s dismissal of a securities fraud action brought by Acticon AG, shareholder of China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd. (“NEP”), for failure to plead economic loss—a necessary element to maintain a private damages action under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“§10(b)”). Acticon had multiple opportunities to, but did not, sell its NEP shares at a profit after NEP’s disclosure of the alleged fraud. The Court held that economic loss is not conclusively negated at the pleadings stage where the price of a security recovers shortly after a disclosure of alleged fraud. Significantly, in drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff under NEP’s 12(b)(6) motion, the Court explained that a rise in the price of a stock following a corrective disclosure requires an inquiry into whether the security rose for “reasons unrelated to [the] initial drop,” and thus introduces factual questions and competing theories of causation that would be inappropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss.

Yums v. Nike Update — Two Amicus Curiae Briefs Filed: One Arguing Vacatur and Remand and the Second in Support of Yums

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On September 6, 2012

Last week, in a prior blog, we reported that Petitioner Already, LLC d/b/a Yums (“Yums”) filed its opening brief with the Supreme Court, arguing that a trademark registrant’s post-suit covenant not to sue does not divest a Federal District Court of standing to review a challenge to the validity of the underlying trademark registration.

Color Trademarks Remain in Fashion: Second Circuit Sides with Louboutin

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trademarks

On September 5, 2012

Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.. The Appellate Court decision reversed the lower court’s finding that a single color can never serve as a trademark for fashion. It also found that Louboutin’s red, lacquered shoe outsole had acquired distinctiveness and is protectable as a trademark. However, the Court went on to state that the trademark is “limited to uses where the red outsole contrasts with the color of the remainder of the shoe.” The case has now been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

Freelancer Survives “Live to Ride” Logo Dispute with Harley-Davidson — For Now

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Copyright

On September 5, 2012

A pending action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin serves as a reminder of the need for clarity and specificity in any IP-related deal, and in this case, in a matter involving copyright. Wayne W. Peterson is a freelance commercial artist who produced various commissioned works for the Harley-Davidson motorcycle company from the mid-1970s through the mid-2000s. Two of Peterson’s works, the “Live to Ride” logo, created in 1985 and the “Harley-Davidson University” logo, created in 1991, are the subject of Peterson’s Complaint.

Will the Supreme Court Weigh in on Reverse Payments in ANDA Cases?

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On September 4, 2012

We previously reported on developments in various United States Courts of Appeal decisions concerning reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements – that is, payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry of the generic product. Most recently, as we reported here, the Third Circuit in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig. bucked prior holdings of the Eleventh, Second, and Federal Circuits, ruling that a reverse payment is prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation and, therefore, serves as evidence of unreasonable restraints of trade. In light of the Third Circuit’s divergent decision from other circuit precedent, many predicted a subsequent Petition for Certiorari.

Reckitt Benckiser v. Tris Pharma — New Jersey Magistrate Finds No Trade Secret Misappropriation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On August 30, 2012

In a recent “not for publication” Memorandum Opinion and Order relating to Reckitt Benckiser’s (“RB”) over-the-counter cough syrup, Delsym® (dextromethorphan polistirex), United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert of the District of New Jersey found that RB failed to establish trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business expectations claimed against Tris Pharma, following a four-day bench trial.

Changing the “Games”: The First Social Media Olympics

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On August 28, 2012

As followers of this blog know, we often bring you updates regarding the ever-changing world of social media, in particular, how it affects attorney ethics or judicial proceedings, or how it is used by financial services industry participants. Here, as the closing ceremonies for this year’s London Olympics have recently ended, we pause to reflect how the popularity of social media has “changed the game,” resulting in the world’s first “Social Media Olympics.”

Norman IP v. Lexmark: Post AIA Joinder and the Rule 42 Trump Card

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Biotech / Patent

On August 28, 2012

In Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., a recent Eastern District of Texas decision, Chief District Judge Leonard Davis provided guidance on the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 (“Rule 20”) joinder and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 (“Rule 42”) consolidation in patent infringement cases post-enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Norman IP brought suit against Lexmark and others on September 15, 2011, one day before the AIA was signed into law. Norman IP later added an additional 23 defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper joinder or to sever, and Norman IP alternatively requested that any severed cases be consolidated under Rule 42. The Court granted defendants’ motion to sever and issued an order consolidating the cases for pretrial issues excluding venue.

Already v. Nike: Petitioner’s Brief Asserts that Jurisdiction Remains Despite Covenant Not to Sue

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / Trademarks

On August 24, 2012

In a prior blog, we reported that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Already, LLC dba Yums v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982, to an appeal from the Second Circuit’s decision affirming the Southern District of New York’s holding that a covenant not to sue entered in a trademark dispute ended the case and controversy between the parties.