Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

District Court Must Consider Whether the Patentee Must be Joined Before Dismissing the Case for Lack of Statutory Standing

On June 19, 2019

The question of who must join a patent infringement suit often raises interesting questions of rights, obligations, and control of the litigation. In the global marketplace with increased licensing arrangements, the extent of retaining rights can have a direct impact on the viability of a lawsuit and protecting intellectual property. Recently, the Federal Circuit in Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Nanya Technology provided further clarification on what meets the standing requirement to bring a patent infringement case, and for dismissing a case for lack of standing. In this patent litigation, the asserted patents (twelve in all) were originally assigned to Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). AMD later executed an agreement purporting to transfer “all right, title and interest” in the patents to Lone Star. The transfer agreement, however, imposes several limitations on Lone Star. For example, Lone Star may only assert the patents against “Unlicensed Third Party Entit[ies]” specifically listed in the agreement. To add new entities, Lone Star and AMD both must agree. If Lone Star sues an unlisted entity, AMD has the right, without Lone Star’s approval, to sublicense the patents to the unlisted entity. Further, AMD can prevent Lone Star from assigning the patents, and AMD and its customers can continue to practice the patents. Finally, AMD shares in any revenue Lone Star...

CAFC Decision Issues Interpreting the Original Patent Requirement

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On June 18, 2019

As reported in a prior post, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently had the opportunity to revisit the legal standard for invalidating reissue patent claims under the original patent requirement. In Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, the CAFC affirmed a district court grant of partial summary judgment that certain reissue claims were invalid under the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. In the process, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the legal standard set forth in a 2014 CAFC decision, Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Antares Pharma, the Federal Circuit held that to comply with the original patent requirement, an invention claimed in a reissue patent must either be for: (i) the same invention disclosed in the original patent or (ii) a newly claimed invention “clearly and unequivocally” disclosed as a separate invention in the original patent. See id. at 1362-1363. In Forum US, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that claims 14-20 of U.S. Reissue Patent 45,878 were invalid. The original patent related to the machining of pipe joints used in the oil and gas industry. Each of the thirteen original patent claims required “a plurality of arbors.” The summary of the invention likewise referred to a plurality of...

NJ Supreme Court Narrowly Construes Shareholder’s Right to Inspection of Corporate Records

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On June 5, 2019

In R.A. Feuer v. Merck & Co., Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s narrow construction of the scope of a shareholder’s right to inspect a corporation’s records under N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28 and the common law. In the underlying case, a Merck & Co, Inc. shareholder sought documents in order to elicit evidence that Merck acted wrongfully in its acquisition of another pharmaceutical firm. Merck appointed a “Working Group” to respond to the shareholder’s demand, which rejected the shareholder’s request for documents relating to the acquisition. Following this rejection, the shareholder sought twelve broad categories of corporate documents, including documents pertaining to the Working Group’s activities, communications, and formation; documents provided to the board regarding the target pharmaceutical firm and two of its drugs; and the board’s consideration of the shareholder’s demands and the Working Group’s recommendation. Merck disclosed pertinent minutes of the board and of the Working Group, but denied the remainder of the shareholder’s demand. The shareholder sued Merck, alleging entitlement to the documents under N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28(4), which permits a shareholder to compel the corporation to produce its “books and records of account, minutes, and record of shareholders,” and the common law. The trial court denied the shareholder’s request and the Appellate Division affirmed. In a per curiam decision, the New...

Third Circuit Offers Reminder that Pansy Does Not Govern Sealing of Documents

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On June 4, 2019

The Third Circuit has clarified the standard for sealing documents filed with a court, emphasizing in In re Avandia that litigants who wish to prevent public access to such documents face a more exacting standard than litigants pursuing a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In connection with its motion for summary judgment as to consumer protection claims filed by two health plans, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) filed certain documents under seal and sought to maintain the confidentiality of those documents after the plans appealed the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to GSK. The District Court granted GSK’s sealing motions in significant part, and the plans appealed. The Third Circuit held that, in ordering the documents to remain sealed, the District Court incorrectly applied the standard, articulated in Pansy v. Stroudsburg, for preserving the confidentiality of discovery materials under Rule 26. In so doing, the Third Circuit opined, the District Court failed to recognize the “strong presumption” of public access that applies to documents filed on the court’s public docket. The Third Circuit held that the District Court should have applied the more exacting common-law right-of-access standard to the motions for continued confidentiality. That standard “begins with a thumb on the scale in favor of openness” and requires the party seeking to seal court...

NJ Department of Health Issues Alternative Treatment Center Request for Applications

by Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in Regulatory Counseling and Departmental Action

On June 3, 2019

The New Jersey Department of Health issued a Request for Applications today that would license up to 108 Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs) for the cultivation, manufacturing, and dispensing of medical marijuana. Unlike the currently licensed ATCs, this call for applications does not require a licensee to be vertically integrated. The Department will, instead, issue endorsements for the various functions: cultivation, manufacturing, and dispensary. In total, the Department will seek up to 24 cultivation endorsements, up to 30 manufacturing endorsements, and up to 54 dispensary endorsements. Licenses will still be issued regionally, with up to 38 licenses available in the northern and central region, and 32 licenses in the southern region. The number of endorsements by region is as follows: Northern Region Cultivation endorsements: 8 Manufacturing endorsements: 10 Dispensary endorsements: 20 Central Region Cultivation endorsements: 8 Manufacturing endorsements: 10 Dispensary endorsements: 20 Southern Region Cultivation endorsements: 8 Manufacturing endorsements: 10 Dispensary endorsements: 14 Applications will become available on July 1, 2019 and will be due on August 15, 2019. A pre-submission webinar will be hosted by the Department on July 16, 2019. Please contact us should you have any questions about the endorsement and application process.

Reversing the First Circuit, the Supreme Court Holds That Rejection of an Executory Trademark License Does Not Bar the Licensee From Continuing to Use the Mark

by Paolo A. Strino and Mark B. Conlan

Posted in Licensing / Trademarks

On May 29, 2019

In Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, held that a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does not terminate the licensee’s rights to use the trademark under the agreement. Tempnology made clothing and accessories designed to stay cool during exercise, and marketed those products under the brand name “Coolcore.” In 2012, Tempnology gave Mission Product Holdings an exclusive license to distribute certain Coolcore products in the United States and granted Mission a non-exclusive global license to use the Coolcore trademarks. The agreement was set to expire in July 2016. In September 2015, however, Tempnology filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and rejected the license agreement under Section 365(a). The Bankruptcy Court held that Tempnology’s rejection of the agreement revoked Mission’s right to use the marks. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed. The First Circuit rejected the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s view and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. The First Circuit reasoned that Congress, in enacting Section 365(n) in 1988, “expressly listed six kinds of intellectual property,” but not trademarks. The First Circuit thus held that trademark licenses are categorically unprotected from court-approved rejection. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the First Circuit. Section 365(a) of...

NY High Court Voids Commercial Tenant’s Traditional Safety Net – Here’s How Landlords Can Take Advantage of This Ruling

by Shepard A. Federgreen

Posted in Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On May 16, 2019

Commercial tenants in New York have traditionally been able to secure a stay of summary dispossess proceedings brought against them and remain in occupancy pending the outcome of tenant-commenced litigation challenging the existence of a landlord-alleged default. Thanks to a recent landmark decision by New York’s highest court, this may no longer be the case if the lease contains the waiver language set forth below. When a landlord provides notice of an alleged default, tenants often seek a declaratory judgment as to the interpretation of the lease and whether a default exists, and also move for a Yellowstone injunction to toll any summary proceeding until the declaratory judgment action is completed. This effectively stays the summary dispossess proceedings. In 159 MP Corp., et al. v. Redbridge Bedford, LLC, the State of New York Court of Appeals addressed the enforceability of a commercial lease provision that prohibited the tenant from commencing a declaratory judgment action against the landlord with respect to any dispute regarding the lease. The Court rejected the tenant’s argument that the clause was void against public policy, finding the clause enforceable, based in large part on the sophistication of the parties and the “strong public policy favoring freedom to contract.” The Court also determined that, based on the enforceable lease waiver prohibiting the...

Gibbons Advises Leading Car Rental Companies on $500 Million Project at Newark Airport — Industry’s First P3-Structured Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On May 15, 2019

Gibbons P.C. served as lead counsel to Avis Budget Group, The Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Holdings Inc., and Advantage Inc., operators of national rental car brands Budget, Alamo, Thrifty, Payless, Zipcar, and National, among others, in connection with the industry’s first public-private partnership (P3) financing structure for the development of a $500 million Consolidated Rent-A-Car facility as part of the redevelopment of Terminal A at Newark Liberty International Airport. Gibbons led the corporate and real estate negotiations on behalf of the national car companies in connection with their long-term concessionaire agreement and real estate leases. Such agreements provide the credit support for the $500 million P3 financial arrangements. Click here to view the full press release issued by Conrac Solutions.

Supreme Court Further Restricts Class Arbitration Finding It Must be Unambiguously Authorized

by Michael R. McDonald and Caroline E. Oks

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 9, 2019

In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varella held that courts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis. Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varella involved an employee who had filed a class action against his employer. Lamps Plus responded by seeking to compel arbitration on an individual rather than a classwide basis. The district court dismissed the case and compelled arbitration, but on a class basis. Lamps Plus appealed, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning hinged on the fact that the arbitration agreement was ambiguous about the availability of class arbitration. The Ninth Circuit thus distinguished Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010), arguing that in Stolt-Nielsen the parties had stipulated that the agreement was silent about class arbitration, whereas the parties had no such stipulation in Lamps Plus. Because the Ninth Circuit held that the agreement was ambiguous, the appellate court turned to California’s contra proferentem rule and held that this state law contract principle required the court to interpret the ambiguous language against the drafter—here, Lamps Plus. The Supreme Court reversed because the principle...

Third Circuit Permits Extra-Strong Restrictive Covenants for Extra-Good Employees

by Christopher Walsh

Posted in General Litigation

On May 6, 2019

In a recent “precedential” opinion, the Third Circuit, applying New Jersey law, approved an employer’s use of an additional, extra-stringent restrictive covenant for its high-performing salespeople, subject to careful blue lining by the court to ensure that the covenant does not create an unreasonable burden for the employees. ADP, LLC, the well-known provider of payroll and other human resources services, required its new sales employees, as a condition of employment, to sign a Sales Representative Agreement and a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Together, the two agreements essentially prohibited the employee, for one year after the termination of employment, from soliciting ADP customers “with which the Employee was involved or exposed” while employed at ADP. Once employed, ADP’s sales staff could earn stock awards by meeting certain sales targets. But to receive an award, the employee had to sign a third agreement, a Restrictive Covenant Agreement, which imposed still more post-employment restrictions on the employee. Among other things, the Restrictive Covenant Agreement essentially prohibited the employee for two years after termination from soliciting all current and prospective ADP customers, whether or not the employee was “involved or exposed” to the customer while employed by ADP. The Restrictive Covenant Agreement also contained a geographic restriction, which essentially prohibited the employee from competing against ADP in the same geographic area...