Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy

On April 26, 2012

The U.S. Commerce Department recently released a comprehensive report, entitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus,” which identified 75 industries as IP intensive. The Report found that IP at such industries supported at least 40 million jobs in 2011. As of 2010, IP comprised more than $5 trillion dollars, or 34.8 percent of, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and accounted for 27.1 million American jobs. Between 2010 and 2011, the U.S. economic recovery resulted in a 1.6% increase in direct employment in IP-intensive industries, faster than the 1.0% growth in non-IP-intensive industries.

Failure to Strictly Comply With the Express Terms of the Notice Provisions in a Claims-Made Insurance Policy Will Forfeit Available Coverage

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Insurance

On April 26, 2012

The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Atlantic Health System Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh confirms the importance of strictly following the notice requirements of a claims-made policy and the relevance of the parties’ course of prior and subsequent performance on the ultimate interpretation of allegedly ambiguous policy terms and conditions. In this case, the failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements resulted in AHS retaining liability for more than $2 million of defense costs and settlement payments.

Patent Litigators: Be Careful What You Plead

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On April 25, 2012

Last month, in a sua sponte Memorandum Order in Technology Licensing Corp. v. Pelco, Inc., 11-cv-8544 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2012), Senior U.S. District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur recently took defendant to task for its answer and counterclaim. In paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of its answer defendant pled the boilerplate language that it was without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations of paragraph [ ] and therefore denies those allegations.” Judge Shadur rebuked defendant for this latter clause, stating it was “oxymoronic” that a party could assert in good faith that it did not have enough information to form a belief about an allegation, and then proceed to deny it.

Consent to Class Arbitration: What is the Meaning of “Silence?”

by Michael R. McDonald and Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 24, 2012

In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds International Corp., the United States Supreme Court held that “a party may not be compelled under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so.” As the parties in Stolt-Nielsen stipulated that their arbitration “agreement was ‘silent’ in the sense that they had not reached any agreement on the issue of class arbitration,” the Court ruled that the arbitrator could not infer the parties’ consent to class arbitration solely from the fact of their agreement to arbitrate, or failure to preclude it.

Surf at Your Own Risk: For the First Time in New Jersey, Judge Holds Juror In Contempt for Internet Use During Deliberations

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On April 24, 2012

Last month, the Hon. Peter E. Doyne, A.J.S.C. found jury foreperson Daniel M. Kaminsky to be in criminal contempt pursuant to R. 1:10-2 for violating several orders of the trial judge that prohibited jurors from engaging in any independent research during trial as set forth in In re Kaminsky, (N.J. Sup. Ct., Bergen County, Mar. 12, 2012). After a mistrial was declared in the underlying criminal drug case and two fellow jurors reported Kaminsky’s Internet use, the Court found beyond a reasonable doubt, in the context of an Order to Show Cause hearing and related in camera proceedings, that (1) Kaminsky conducted independent research; (2) the act was contemptuous; and (3) the conduct was willful and contumacious, “with a complete disregard of the court’s authority and instructions.” Although the foreperson was subject to a maximum punishment of six months in prison, a $1,000 fine or both, he was only fined $500.

Patent Litigation at the ITC: Views from the Government, In-House Attorneys and Outside Counsel

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in International Trade Commission / Patent

On April 23, 2012

On April 26, the Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology, Seton Hall University School of Law, and the New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association will present, “Patent Litigation at the ITC: Views from the Government, In-House Attorneys and Outside Counsel.” Throughout the afternoon, two panels comprised of various government officials and in-house counsel will come together to share their views on patent litigation and how it is approached in their specific practice areas.

U.S. v. Aleynikov: Second Circuit Reverses SDNY Due to Statutory Interpretation Errors

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trade Secrets

On April 20, 2012

Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sergey Aleynikov was convicted of stealing and transferring proprietary computer source code used in his former employer’s high-frequency trading system, in violation of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1832, and the National Stolen Property Act (“NSPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2314. On appeal, Aleynikov argued that his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute because 1) the source code was not a “stolen” “good” within the meaning of the NSPA and 2) the source code was not “related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of the EEA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with Aleynikov and reversed the District Court’s ruling.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Itself, Withdraws Opinion Which Held that Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Prohibits Mandatory Arbitration in Warranties

by Michael R. McDonald

Posted in Class Action Defense / General Litigation

On April 19, 2012

As reported in an earlier post in September 2011, the Ninth Circuit in Kolev v. EuroMotors West/The Auto Gallery held that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) “precludes enforcement of pre-dispute agreements . . . that require mandatory binding arbitration of consumer warranty claims.” The Ninth Circuit’s ruling would have prohibited manufacturers and distributors of consumer products from attempting to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s recent pro-arbitration rulings, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, involving MMWA consumer warranty claims. According to the original majority opinion in Kolev, to the extent the MMWA precludes arbitration clauses, class waivers in such clauses, which Concepcion rendered immune from invalidation under state laws, would thus likewise be unenforceable in MMWA actions, providing a complete end-run around Concepcion.

Supreme Court Affirms Kappos v. Hyatt, Paving the Way for New Evidence and Expansive Review of Patent Applications

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On April 19, 2012

Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, Kappos v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holding that in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, a patent applicant has the right to present new evidence to the District Court regardless of whether that evidence previously was or could have been presented during the proceedings before the PTO. Further, when such new evidence is presented, the District Court must review any related factual conclusions affected by the new evidence de novo, without giving deference to any prior decision or finding of the PTO.

D.C. Circuit Enjoins NLRB Employee Rights Posting Requirement – Deadline for Compliance Delayed Pending Resolution of Legal Challenges

by Kristin D. Sostowski

Posted in Labor

On April 18, 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit entered an order yesterday in National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, enjoining an NLRB posting requirement that would require most private sector companies to post a Notice of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act in their workplaces. The D.C. Circuit ruling came on the heels of the District of South Carolina’s opinion last Friday in the Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB case, which held that the NLRB exceeded its authority when it approved the posting requirement.