Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

UPDATE: The Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Accident Continues to Cause Ripples: Texas Supreme Court Holds That Defense Costs are Not Liabilities Under Insurance Policy

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On July 15, 2019

UPDATE: The Supreme Court of Texas recently refused an application for rehearing and declined to revisit its January holding that defense costs are not liabilities under an energy insurance policy. That decision, in the matter captioned Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et al. v. Houston Casualty Company, et al., stemmed from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling-rig accident that has been called, “the largest accidental marine oil spill in U.S. history.” The Court held that Lloyd’s of London Underwriters (“Lloyd’s”) were liable to cover approximately $112 million as a result of policy language that the Court interpreted as distinguishing between “liability” and “expenses.” The case involved the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and Anadarko E&P Company, L.P. (collectively, “Anadarko”) and a group of insurance underwriters led by the Houston Casualty Company (the “Underwriters”). Anadarko was a 25% minority interest holder in the Macondo Well that blew out in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010. Anadarko reached a settlement agreement with BP under which Anadarko agreed to provide its 25% interest and to pay $4 billion to BP in exchange for a release and indemnity against all other liabilities arising out of the accident. Anadarko’s legal fees and defense expenses were not included in the settlement agreement, and Anadarko sought these fees and expenses from the Underwriters pursuant...

FOI-led: Supreme Court Restricts Public Access to Confidential Business Information

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Appellate / General Litigation

On July 11, 2019

In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, the United States Supreme Court expanded the meaning of “confidential” information exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In doing so, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and definitively rejected the “competitive harm” requirement adopted by the D.C. Circuit in National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Morton. Respondent Argus Leader Media filed a FOIA request with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeking the names and addresses of all retail stores that participate in a federal food stamp program known as SNAP. Argus Leader also sought each store’s annual redemption data from 2005 to 2010. The USDA declined to disclose store-level SNAP data based on Exemption 4 of FOIA, which precludes disclosure of “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” Argus Leader sued the USDA. The district court ordered disclosure based upon the failure to satisfy the “competitive harm” test, which requires a party to establish confidentiality by proving that disclosure is “likely … to cause substantial harm to [its] competitive position.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment. In a 6-3 decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, the Court rejected the competitive harm test and...

Budget Matters, Incentives, and Cannabis Will Be This Summer’s Hot Topics in Trenton

by Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in State Government

On July 9, 2019

The Summer is here and the halls of the Legislature are quiet, but three topics that controlled much of the debate in Trenton this year are expected to drag into the Fall: the state budget, economic incentives, and cannabis. Fiscal Year 2020 Governor Murphy signed the Fiscal Year 2020 budget on June 30, avoiding a government shutdown, but not ending the debate on taxes and spending. After the Legislature sent the Governor a budget that did not include a millionaire’s tax, corporate responsibility fee, and tax on opioid manufacturers, the Governor line-item vetoed several appropriations and signed an Executive Order authorizing the State Treasury to place in reserve approximately $235 million in state appropriations. In 2016,Governor Christie took similar action when his Administration froze approximately $100 million in spending as the state health benefit plan design committees considered cost reductions. Prior to the July 4th holiday, the Murphy Administration announced the full list of spending items placed in reserve. The funds will only be released after the Treasurer certifies that certain revenue objectives are met, meaning this issue will linger for several months. Economic Incentives Also on June 30, the State’s two main economic incentive programs, the Grow NJ Assistance Program (GROWNJ) and the Economic and Redevelopment Growth Grant (ERGG) Program, expired and new applications...

Supreme Court Invalidates Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks

by Paolo A. Strino

Posted in Licensing / Trademarks

On July 8, 2019

In a long-awaited decision, Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court held – in a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Kagan – that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. The decision completes a trilogy of cases that, in recent years, stirred up significant interest on the interplay between freedom of speech and certain Lanham Act trademark prohibitions. Initially, the constitutionality of the bar against registration of disparaging marks was brought to nationwide media attention through the Redskins case (Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc), previously reported on by Gibbons, which culminated the legal effort by Native American tribes to delineate the term “redskin” as an offensive and disparaging racial slur, resulting in the initial cancellation of the eponymous mark owned by the Washington Redskins. Pending review by the Supreme Court, the Blackhorse case was cut short by another case, Matal v. Tam. In that 2017 decision, the Court struck down a Lanham Act provision that prevented registration for marks that are deemed “disparaging,” thus rendering moot any further review of Blackhorse. Because the Court in Matal had already declared the “disparaging” bar unconstitutional, it comes as no surprise that the Section 2(a) prohibition (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) on registration of “immoral or scandalous” matter fared similarly under the scrutiny of...

New Jersey Appellate Panels Disagree on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements Concerning Transportation Workers

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Alternative Dispute Resolution

On July 1, 2019

On June 4 and June 5, 2019, separate panels of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court issued diametrically opposed decisions calling into question the enforceability of arbitration agreements involving employees and independent contractors who provide transportation services. In Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC and Arafa v. Health Express Corporation, two Appellate Division panels considered the same legal question: are arbitration agreements enforceable under New Jersey law where one of the signatories is exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)? Despite the uniformity of the issue considered, the respective holdings stand in stark contrast to one another, creating confusion as to how to interpret arbitration agreements moving forward. Colon and Arafa involved strikingly similar facts. Both the Colon and Arafa plaintiffs contracted with the respective corporate defendants to provide transportation and delivery services on their behalf with regard to pharmaceutical products. Both defendants classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors; and both plaintiffs executed arbitration agreements governing the terms and conditions under which they were to provide transportation services. Most significantly, in both cases the arbitration agreements at issue explicitly stated that they were to be governed pursuant to the FAA (The Arafa agreement stated that it “is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act,” while the Colon agreement stated that the...

Sharing Communication with Public Relations Firm Destroys Privilege

by Caroline E. Oks

Posted in General Litigation

On June 25, 2019

The Southern District of New York recently held that sharing attorney-client privileged communications with a public relations firm destroys that privilege. Universal Standard brought a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit against Target. During the course of discovery, documents were produced consisting of emails between Universal Standard, its outside counsel, and BrandLink, a public relations firm. When Universal Standard sought to claw back the documents because they were privileged, Target refused. The court considered whether the fact that emails between Universal Standard and its counsel were also shared with BrandLink should result in a waiver, or whether the communications fall under one of several possible exceptions to the general rule that “disclosure to a third party by the party of a communication with his attorney eliminates whatever privilege the communication may have originally possessed.” First, the court considered whether BrandLink was “essential to allow communications between the attorney and the client, such as an interpreter or accountant.” This exception applies where the third party enables counsel to understand aspects of the client’s own communications that could not otherwise be appreciated, but not where the communications are merely important to the attorney’s ability to represent the client. Here, the emails involved discussions regarding a public relations strategy surrounding the filing of the lawsuit and whether to issue...

Inadvertently Produced Privileged Material May Generally Be Used for Purpose of Challenging Assertion of Privilege

by Gibbons P.C.

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

On June 25, 2019

A New York federal court has recently held that inadvertently produced privileged documents may be used by the receiving party for the limited purpose of challenging the claim of privilege to the extent that the receiving party became aware of the contents of those documents prior to the assertion of the privilege over those documents. In re Keurig Green Mt. Single Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig. In that case, the parties had entered into a stipulated protective order with a Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) clawback provision, but the parties relied on two different provisions of the same order to support their arguments concerning whether the privileged document could be relied upon in challenging the claim of privilege. The order stated that “[i]f a party has inadvertently or mistakenly produced Privileged Material, and if the party makes a written request for the return, … the receiving party will also make no use of the information contained in the Privileged Material … regardless of whether the receiving party disputes the claim of privilege.” However, the order also stated that “[t]he receiving party may not use the Privileged Material … for any purpose whatsoever other than moving the Court for an order compelling production of the Privileged Material…” The Court relied on two prior decisions, both authored by...

Third Circuit Establishes Framework for Determining Third-Party Based Liability under the TCPA

by Caroline E. Oks

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 24, 2019

In a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit held that an unsolicited fax seeking information does not constitute an unlawful advertisement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Now, to “establish third-party based liability under the TCPA, a plaintiff must show that the fax: (1) sought to promote or enhance the quality or quantity of a product or services being sold commercially; (2) was reasonably calculated to increase the profits of the sender; and (3) directly or indirectly encouraged the recipient to influence the purchasing decisions of a third party.” In Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum, Inc., the plaintiff claimed that it received unsolicited faxes from Defendants in violation of the TCPA. Defendants maintain a national database of healthcare providers, containing providers’ contact information, demographics, specialties, education, and related data. Defendants market, sell, and license the database typically to healthcare, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies, who use it to update their provider directories, identify potential providers to fill gaps in their network of providers, and validate information when processing insurance claims. To maintain the accuracy of the database, Defendants send unsolicited faxes to healthcare providers listed in the database, requesting them to respond and correct any outdated or inaccurate information. These faxes also advised recipients that “[t]here is no cost to you to participate...

FDA Will Now Provide More Data on 180-Day Exclusivity in the Orange Book

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Biotech / Licensing / Patent

On June 21, 2019

In a recent alert, the FDA announced that effective June 18, 2019, the Agency will publish additional data in the Orange Book Paragraph IV Certifications list. To enhance the already published data, the Orange Book will now include (1) the number of potential first applicants; (2) the 180-day decision date; (3) the date of the “first applicant” approval; (4) the date of first commercial marketing by any first applicant; and (5) the expiration date of the last qualifying patent. According to the FDA, the updated data listing comports with the Agency’s commitment under the Drug Competition Action Plan where the FDA “committed to enhancing efficiency of the development and approval of ANDAs, with the ultimate goal of more approvals.” Historically, the Orange Book Paragraph IV Certifications list has contained relevant information related to 180-day eligibility for generic drug products. Until recently, the listings included the name of the drug product, dosage form, dosage strength(s), the reference listed drug, the New Drug Application Number and the date upon which the first substantially complete application containing a Paragraph IV certification was submitted to the Agency. The new data will provide greater clarity to Hatch-Waxman litigants in a variety of ways. More specifically, with respect to the number of first applicants, the data will provide the number of...

Is Employer to Whom Trade Secrets are Allegedly Disclosed a Necessary Party in DTSA Claim Against Former Employee?

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trade Secrets

On June 20, 2019

Given increased employee mobility, claims under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) are on the rise. The DTSA provides a federal cause of action for misappropriation of a trade secret related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b). When considering a complaint against a former employee for violations under the DTSA, is the new employer to whom information is allegedly disclosed a necessary and indispensable party? A Massachusetts district court recently said no. In Phio Pharms. Corp. v. Khvorova, the plaintiff Phio Pharmaceuticals Corporation (PPC) sued the defendant—the company’s former Chief Scientific Officer—for misappropriation under the DTSA. PPC alleged that the defendant assigned to U Mass Medical School (defendant’s new employer and competitor of PPC) a patent application describing a class of molecules that PPC and the defendant allegedly investigated while the defendant was working for PPC. PPC sought the return of all trade secret information allegedly in the defendant’s possession and an injunction against further use or disclosure of its confidential information. The defendant moved to dismiss claiming that U Mass was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The court denied the motion and held that U Mass was not a necessary or indispensable party....