Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Governor Murphy Presents FY 2020 State Budget

Posted in State Legislative and Budget Matters

On March 6, 2019

Governor Murphy presented his proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Budget to a joint session of the New Jersey Legislature on March 5, 2019. His spending plan for the upcoming fiscal year totals $38.6 billion, which is a $1.3 billion increase from last year’s appropriations bill. The Governor’s budget message continued his theme of a “fairer and stronger economy” to make the middle class more secure. He highlighted the recent enactment of a $15 minimum wage, expansion of paid family leave, and the implementation of the state’s paid sick leave law. The Governor also continued his call for greater K-12 education funding and making community college tuition free. The Governor’s proposal for FY 2020, which he described as a “blueprint for the middle class,” is built upon four pillars: Realizing sustainable savings; Stabilizing revenues and increasing creditworthiness; Maintaining and growing investment in education, infrastructure, and innovation; and Addressing affordability. To accomplish these goals, the Governor proposed: Achieving $1.1 billion in savings from public employee health benefit reforms and other departmental savings identified by the Treasury; Increasing the State’s surplus to $1.2 billion; Funding the State’s pension system at $3.8 billion; Reducing the diversion of funds from dedicated sources like the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Clean Energy Program; Increasing funding for K-12 education, increasing the...

Third Circuit Clarifies Scope of Liability for Insurance Companies Under the Consumer Fraud Act

by Kevin H. Gilmore

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 5, 2019

In a precedential decision interpreting the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the Third Circuit determined that an automobile insurance carrier may be liable under the CFA for deceptively inducing one of its customers into releasing claims against another party represented by the carrier. In Alpizar-Fallas v. Favero, Defendant’s car struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing serious injury and damages. Both parties were insured by Defendant’s insurance company, Progressive. A Progressive claims adjuster arrived at Plaintiff’s home and presented her with a document that he claimed required her signature. The adjuster represented that by signing the document Plaintiff would expedite the claim process. Plaintiff signed the document relying on the adjuster’s statements. The document, however, was a “comprehensive general release of any and all claims” against defendant driver, also insured by Progressive. Plaintiff was not advised by the adjuster to seek counsel. Plaintiff subsequently brought a putative class action against Progressive for violation of the CFA. On Progressive’s motion, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, reasoning that the CFA did not apply to “an insurance company’s refusal to pay benefits” but only to the “sale or marketing” of the policies. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the district court mischaracterized Plaintiff’s claim as one for denial of her benefits. Reaffirming its 2007 decision in Weiss...

PTAB Tackles Patentability Issues After New Guidelines

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Patent

On March 4, 2019

Recently, the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) enacted new guidelines to “clarify” the patentability standard and analyses. The USPTO stated that it had undertaken this clarification because many court decisions on the issue of patentability of method type patents in the computer arena had become very difficult for examiners to understand and apply in a predictive manner. As such, there were concerns that the examining corp was not reaching consistent examination and prosecution results. Following the enactment of the new guidelines, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel reviewed four patents relating to methods of electronically storing financial documents. The patents involved were US Patents 6,963,866, 7,552,118, 7,836,067 and 9,141,612 belonging to Mirror Imaging LLC (Mirror). Those patents were challenged by Fidelity Information Services LLC (Fidelity) because Fidelity asserted that only abstract ideas were involved, thereby being unpatentable subject matter under section 101. In fact, in a previous PTAB challenge on the same four patents, the PTAB actually opined that the Mirror patents were likely invalid. At the hearing, the questioning by the administrative patent judges centered around whether the abstract ideas are “integrated into a practical application.” Answers to the question of the practical application revolved around the elimination of manually arranging and documenting financial information, as well as the improvement...

Split Ninth Circuit Grants Government’s Interlocutory Appeal in Youths’ Climate Change Suit

by Michael A. Conforti

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On March 4, 2019

In 2015, 21 youth plaintiffs, ranging in age from eight to 19 at the time of filing, brought a constitutional climate-change lawsuit against the United States alleging that the United States and various executive branch agencies discriminate against younger generations with policies that contribute to and exacerbate climate change in violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The plaintiffs seek an order enjoining current governmental policies and adopting a plan to curb excessive carbon dioxide emissions. The government unsuccessfully sought to have the case dismissed, and when that failed, sought mandamus from the Ninth Circuit directing the district court to dismiss the suit. Recently, after a trip up to the United States Supreme Court and back down to the Oregon District Court, the Ninth Circuit ultimately agreed by a 2-1 majority to allow the defendants’ mandamus petition to proceed. The majority noted that interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are generally only authorized when a district court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion” and found “an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” The plaintiffs allege that the United States government knows, yet continues to ignore, that carbon dioxide emissions from the...

Another District Court Addresses Viability of “Continuing Misappropriation” Under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Trade Secrets

On March 1, 2019

The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (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). The DTSA applies to any trade secret misappropriation for which any act occurred “on or after the date of the enactment” of the DTSA. See P.L. 114-153 § 2(e). A Missouri district court recently held that the DTSA applies to trade secret misappropriation that continues after the DTSA enactment date (May 11, 2016)—even if the misappropriation began before the enactment date, see Roeslein & Assocs. v. Elgin, Civ. No. 17-1351(JMB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6981, at *36 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2019), adding to mounting precedent concluding the same. In Roeslein, developers of energy production facilities sued one individual (a former employee) and three corporate defendants for violation of the DTSA, among other claims. The corporate defendants moved to dismiss claims asserted against them under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs’ DTSA claims were not cognizable because the plaintiffs failed to allege misappropriation on or after the DTSA’s enactment date. The court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motions, leaving the DTSA claims intact. The Amended Complaint alleged that individual...

Recap: IRS Convenes Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations for Opportunity Zones

by Peter J. Ulrich and Cameron W. MacLeod

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On February 25, 2019

Jason J. Redd, a Director in the Gibbons Government & Regulatory Affairs Department attended an overflowing public hearing on February 14 convened by the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of obtaining input from stakeholders concerning the initial proposed regulations for Opportunity Zones (OZ) issued in October. The IRS is reviewing comments on the first round of proposed rules and is expected to issue the next round of proposed regulations in March, with the potential for final regulations to be issued in late spring. Witnesses at the packed hearing included state cabinet officials, as well as representatives from state economic development groups, small businesses, community reinvestment coalitions, investment funds, and technology and planning organizations, among others. Testimony focused on ensuring that program regulations maximize investment and economic growth by generating new development, capital, and jobs in the distressed communities where OZs are located. There was also a clear call, by all in attendance, for clarity and flexibility in the next round of rules. Suggestions included: (i) modifying the rules to provide more flexibility to investors when exiting Qualified Opportunity Fund (QOF) investments, which is currently limited to a sale of the QOF investment itself; (ii) minimizing sourcing and location rules for OZ business income; and (iii) allowing QOFs to reinvest interim gains within a reasonable...

District of New Jersey’s Dismissal of Securities Class Action Reiterates Significant Hurdles to Sufficiently Pleading Scienter

by Samuel I. Portnoy

Posted in Securities

On February 8, 2019

A decision last week from the District of New Jersey is the latest of several recent decisions from the District and the Third Circuit making clear that securities fraud plaintiffs face a high bar in pleading an inference of scienter strong enough to withstand a motion to dismiss. In In re Electronics For Imaging, Inc. Securities Litigation, Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action alleging that Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (EFI), and two of its executives, violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants falsely assured investors in a Form 10-K and Form 10-Q (and accompanying Sarbanes Oxley certifications) that EFI’s internal controls over financial reporting were functional and effective—including by asserting that those controls had been reviewed, evaluated, and improved. A subsequent press release and amendments to the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q identified material weaknesses in EFI’s internal controls. Plaintiffs filed suit in the wake of a drop in EFI stock price that occurred after the press release was issued. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to sufficiently plead scienter. In support of scienter, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ record keeping practices so egregiously violated generally accepted accounting principles that Defendants either: (i) lied when they asserted they had previously reviewed and evaluated...

New Jersey Supreme Court Expands Reach of the Consumer Fraud Act to Include Customized Merchandise

by Caroline E. Oks

Posted in General Litigation

On February 6, 2019

Relying on the remedial purpose of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that customized merchandise falls within the reach of the CFA. In All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks County International, Inc., plaintiffs, an individual and his limited liability towing company, entered into a contract with defendants for the purchase of a medium-duty 4×4 truck to be customized with an autoloader tow unit to meet plaintiffs’ particular needs. After the manufacturer attempted delivery on four occasions of a tow truck with significant problems, plaintiffs believed the situation to be “hopeless,” rejected delivery and demanded return of a $10,000.00 deposit. The manufacturer refused return of the deposit. Plaintiffs then brought suit for, among other things, violation of the CFA. The trial court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer on all claims, holding in pertinent part that a customized “tow truck was not something available ‘to the public for sale’” under the CFA. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the line of cases that excluded “complex” goods or services from CFA claims was not applicable here because there was no showing that the tow truck at issue was any more “complex” than any other tow truck. Defendants then appealed, arguing that the CFA does not apply to transactions concerning custom-made...

Delaware Supreme Court Orders Production of Emails in Response to Section 220 Demand and Refuses to Restrict Knock-On Litigation to Delaware

by Christopher Walsh

Posted in General Litigation

On February 4, 2019

In KT4 Partners LLC v. Palantir Technologies Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court required a corporation to produce emails in response to a “books and records” demand under 8 Del. C. §220; it also refused to limit any knock-on litigation on the merits to the Delaware Court of Chancery. KT4 is a stockholder in Palantir and received certain rights under a series of Investor Rights Agreements and a First Refusal and Co-Sale Agreement. After a falling out between KT4 and Palantir’s management, Palantir amended the Investor Rights Agreement in ways detrimental to KT4. KT4 responded with a request to inspect Palantir’s “books and records” pursuant to 8 Del. C. §220, which entitles a stockholder to inspect a corporation’s “books and records” if, and to the extent that, the requested inspection “is for a proper purpose.” Palantir refused to comply, and KT4 filed a §220 action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel production of the requested documents. The Court of Chancery ruled that KT4 had a statutory “proper purpose” of investigating three areas of potential corporate wrongdoing: 1) Palantir’s failure to hold stockholder meetings, 2) Palantir’s amendment of the Investor Rights Agreement, and 3) Palantir’s potential breach of the Investor Rights and Co-Sale Agreements. The Court of Chancery further held that KT4 was “entitled to...

Supreme Court Holds That Non-Public Sales are Invalidating Under Post-AIA Section 102

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Biotech / Patent / USPTO

On February 1, 2019

In a closely watched case directly addressing open questions after the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), a unanimous Supreme Court (Thomas, J.) held in Helsinn v. Teva that a sale to a third party, despite being confidential, nevertheless triggered the long-standing meaning of “on sale” under §102(a). Gibbons previously reported on this much anticipated decision. As background, Helsinn owns patents directed to reducing the likelihood of a serious side effect of chemotherapy treatment. Almost two years before applying for a patent, Helsinn and a third party entered into a license agreement and a supply and purchase agreement. The agreements were publicly announced, but required the third party “to keep confidential any proprietary information received under the agreements.” The Federal Circuit held that because the sale between Helsinn and the third party was publicly disclosed, the on-sale bar applied. Before enactment of the AIA, 35 U.S.C. §102(b) barred the patentability of an invention that was “patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent.” By enacting the AIA, Congress amended §102 to bar the patentability of an “invention [that] was patented, described in a printed publication, or...