Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Gibbons Labor & Employment Practice Highlighted By Chambers USA

On July 10, 2012

The Gibbons Employment & Labor Department, and three of its attorneys, were among the 10 Gibbons practice areas and 20 individual attorneys ranked in the 2012 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers annually rates the nation’s leading business lawyers and law firms through comprehensive interviews with top companies, attorneys, and business executives, plus extensive supplementary research.

Gibbons Intellectual Property Practice Highlighted by Chambers USA

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Intellectual Property / Patent

On July 10, 2012

The Gibbons Intellectual Property Department, and two of its attorneys, were among the 10 Gibbons practice areas and 20 individual attorneys ranked in the 2012 edition of the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers for Business. Chambers annually rates the nation’s leading business lawyers and law firms through comprehensive interviews with top companies, attorneys, and business executives, plus extensive supplementary research.

Revisiting Hindsight Bias: Mintz v. Dietz & Watson

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On July 9, 2012

In Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, an opinion penned by Chief Judge Rader, a three judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Newman and Dky strongly admonished against the use of impermissible hindsight towards a finding of obviousness. Despite finding that the accused products did not infringe and following a comprehensive analysis of hindsight, the CAFC further held that U.S. Patent No. 5,413,148 (the “‘148 Patent”) was not invalid under § 103.

New Jersey District Judge Upholds Sanctions for Camden County’s Grossly Negligent Litigation Hold Procedures

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 6, 2012

On March 21, 2012, New Jersey District Judge Noel Hillman upheld Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio’s ruling against Camden County, New Jersey (the “County”) for spoliation of evidence in an insurance dispute arising out of injuries to a motorist on a county road. State National Insurance Co. v. County of Camden, 08-cv-5128 (D.N.J. March 21, 2012). Judge Hillman’s March 21, 2012, decision addresses the County’s appeal of a June 30, 2011, decision of Judge Donio granting State National Insurance Company’s (“State National”) motion regarding the County’s failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). Specifically, the County failed to institute a litigation hold, to disable its automatic email deletion program, and to preserve copies of its backup tapes after litigation was commenced.

USPTO to Expand Its Regional Office Program

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in USPTO

On July 5, 2012

On July 2, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced that it will be expanding its regional office program to include Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado and San Jose, California. The first regional office, the Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Detroit, Michigan, is scheduled to open on July 13 of this year. Section 23 of the America Invents Act required the USPTO to establish at least 3 additional satellite offices by September 2014.

Apple v. Motorola – An End to the Smart Phone Wars or the Harbinger of New Standards for Proving Damages and Injunctions?

by Robert E. Rudnick

Posted in Patent

On June 29, 2012

Judge Posner’s ruling in Apple v. Motorola last week may have brought an end to the patent war between the parties, but may be a harbinger for tougher standards for proving patent damages and injunctions. Apple and Motorola have accused each other of infringing patents directed to cell phone technology. Following a Daubert hearing, Judge Posner excluded the parties’ damages experts as unreliable. Because the parties cannot prove their respective damages without admissible expert opinion, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Texas Federal Court Splits Environmental Claims: CERCLA Claims Remain in Federal Court, State Claims are Remanded to State Court

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On June 29, 2012

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in May v. Apache Corporation, 2012 WL 156547 (S.D.Tex. May 1, 2012) issued an interesting decision on the relationship between federal and state environmental claims and where they can be heard. The case has some parallels to a case pending in the New Jersey State court captioned the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Occidental Chemical Corp., et als.

New Jersey State Courts Enter the E-Discovery Arena in Earnest; Award Sanctions for Email Spoliation

by Kevin W. Weber

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On June 29, 2012

On June 18, 2012, an Appellate Court in New Jersey issued Goldmark v. Mellina, which held that asserting the attorney-client privilege does not excuse counsel and parties from their obligation to preserve relevant e-mails or other documents. There, the Court upheld the trial judge’s award of $5,502.50 in sanctions against a prominent New Jersey law firm because it had failed to timely produce electronic documents, which had temporarily disappeared, even though the lapse was not knowing. Because there were virtually no prior opinions (published or unpublished) addressing e-discovery in this jurisdiction, Goldmark is an important first-step towards providing e-discovery guidance to New Jersey practitioners.

Second Circuit Finds No Anti-Competitive Conduct in Eatoni v. RIM, Applies “Manifest Disregard of the Law,” Post-Hall Street

by Kevin R. Reich

Posted in Antitrust / Appellate

On June 28, 2012

In a summary order issued on June 21, 2012, the Second Circuit in Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. v. Research in Motion Corp., affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Eatoni’s monopolization complaint against BlackBerry maker RIM for failure adequately to plead anti-competitive conduct. Significantly, the Court held that individual instances of alleged misconduct that are not anti-competitive on their own do not state a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when considered together.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against OT Pay for Pharmaceutical Salespeople

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Wage and Hour

On June 25, 2012

In a major victory for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that company sales representatives who promote their employer’s products to doctors and hospitals are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In doing so, the Court resolved a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal over the scope of the “outside salesman” exemption to the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The Court’s holding in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. regarding the scope of this exemption has provided much needed clarity to pharmaceutical companies and employers with similar types of sales forces who have relied – and hope to continue to rely – on the exemption.