Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

A Domestic Corporation Can Reside in Only One District in the State of Its Incorporation for Patent Venue

Posted in Patent

On May 21, 2018

The Federal Circuit in In Re BigCommerce recently held in a mandamus opinion that a domestic corporation incorporated in a state having multiple judicial districts “resides” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) only in a single judicial district within that state. In so holding, the Federal Circuit resolved a district court split with competing interpretations from the Eastern District of Texas and the Central District of California. The court’s opinion provides further guidance to practitioners and clarifies jurisprudence post TC Heartland. The patent venue statute provides that patent infringement suits may be brought (1) “in the judicial district where the defendant resides,” or (2) “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) (emphasis added). The Central District of California in Realtime Data LLC v Nexenta System held that a domestic corporation “resides” in the state of its incorporation “only in the judicial district in which it maintains in principal place of business.” No 2:17-cv-07690, Dkt. 28 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018). The Eastern District of Texas in Diem v. BigCommerce came to a different conclusion, holding that “a domestic corporation resides in the state of its incorporation and if that state contains more than one judicial district, the corporate defendant resides in each such judicial...

NJ District Courts Continue to Enforce the Disclosure Requirements Regarding Contentions Pursuant to New Jersey’s Local Patent Rules

by Charles H. Chevalier

Posted in Patent

On May 18, 2018

We previously reported in February 2014 and June 2014 that New Jersey District Court Judges will enforce the District of New Jersey’s Local Patent Rules’ contention disclosure requirements and bar parties from making arguments that were not properly disclosed in their contentions. Consistent with those rulings, in a recent opinion, in Impax Labs., Inc. v. Actavis Labs FL, Inc., Judge Chesler barred one of Actavis’s infringement arguments made during summary judgment as untimely because the argument was not sufficiently disclosed in its infringement contentions. In its opposition brief, Impax argued that Actavis raised new non-infringement arguments based on the pharmacokinetic profiles of its proposed generic product. Actavis claimed that its generic product did not meet claim limitations involving a “maximum concentration” limitation or a “40% fluctuation” limitation for two subsets of asserted claims. Upon review of Actavis’s contentions, the court found that Actavis did sufficiently disclose its non-infringement argument in regard to the “maximum concentration” limitation, but that it did not sufficiently disclose its non-infringement argument regarding the “40% fluctuation” limitation. The court found that Actavis’s non-infringement contentions regarding the “40% fluctuation” limitation stated that “there is no evidence that its products ‘result in a levodopa plasma concentration’ meeting the 40% fluctuation limitation.” Yet, in its summary judgment motion, Actavis expanded that argument by providing a...

New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Rescission of Contract Also Rescinds Agreement to Arbitrate Contractual Disputes

by Caroline E. Oks

Posted in General Litigation

On May 15, 2018

In a recent published opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that an arbitration provision will not survive rescission of the contract in which it is contained unless the parties expressly agree otherwise, and that the issue is properly decided by the trial court and not the arbitrator. This opinion marks one more step in New Jersey’s evolving landscape regarding questions of arbitrability. In Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp., the panel considered two actions consolidated on appeal. Both actions involved consumers who attempted to purchase cars from two separate dealerships. Both consumers signed some of the initial paperwork (which contained an arbitration provision), accepted possession of the vehicle, but returned the vehicles after a few days for different reasons. When their respective security deposits for the vehicles were withheld, they each brought suit claiming wrongful conduct on the part of the dealerships. The defendant dealerships successfully moved to dismiss, asserting that plaintiffs were contractually required to arbitrate their pleaded claims. Plaintiffs appealed. After determining that issues of fact as to whether valid sales contracts had been formed and were enforceable should have prevented dismissal of the actions, the Appellate Division addressed whether the arbitration provisions in the contracts were rescinded when the sales contracts were rescinded. Specifically, the Appellate Division considered “whether an arbitration provision...

USPTO Proposes a New Rule to Use Narrower Phillips Standard During Claim Construction in AIA Trial Proceedings

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On May 11, 2018

On May 9, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed to amend the current rules to change the claim construction standard used in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews and bring it in line with the standard used in district court and ITC proceedings. Under the amended rules, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) would no longer use the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for claim construction, and instead would use the narrower Phillips standard. The proposed rules would apply to claim interpretations occurring in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) patents proceedings. The Board currently construes unexpired patent claims and proposed claims in AIA trial proceedings using the BRI standard, as directed by 37 CFR 42.100(b), 42.200(b), and 42.300(b). Each of these sections currently provides that “[a] claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” This standard differs from the Phillips standard used by district courts. Under the proposed changes to these sections, the PTAB will adopt the Phillips standard and construe claims “given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a...

Rule Change Alert! The Bayh-Dole Act Has New Time and Reporting Requirements

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On May 7, 2018

On April 30, 2018, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued rule changes regarding the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act was enacted in 1980 as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. No. 96-517), amended in 1984 by the Trademark Clarification Act of 1984 (Title V of Pub. L. No. 98-620), and again in 2000 by the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999 (Pub. L. No. 106-404). The Bayh-Dole Act created a uniform policy that allows small businesses and nonprofit organizations the option to retain title to inventions made under government contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements that are for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work. The implementing regulations are found at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 27.3. The April 30, 2018 revisions to the Bayh-Dole Act are categorized as follows: No time limit for government to request title. Since implementation, the government had 60 days within which it could request title to any inventions. The new rule removes the 60 day notice period. Quicker timeframe to prosecute patent applications. Previously, contractors and grant recipients had to notify the agency who granted them money of their intent to prosecute a patent application and maintain it and enter into reexamination or opposition proceedings not less than...

Governor Murphy Signs New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Law

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Employee Benefits

On May 4, 2018

On May 2, 2018, Governor Murphy signed the comprehensive paid sick leave bill passed by the New Jersey Legislature in April. For a description of the law and how it will affect New Jersey employers, please see our previous blog post. For questions regarding this bill, or paid sick leave laws generally, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.

New York City and New York State Pass Comprehensive Anti-Harassment Legislation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Discrimination

On May 2, 2018

The New York City Council recently passed the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act (“NYC Act”), a series of bills that address sexual harassment prevention in the workplace. Mayor Bill de Blasio is expected to sign the legislation into law in the near future. The passage of the NYC Act coincides with the signing of the 2018-2019 New York State Budget (“the Bill”), which includes comprehensive and significant changes to State anti-harassment laws described as “necessary to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.” STOP SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN NYC ACT Mandatory Anti-Harassment Training The NYC Act would require employers (with 15 or more employees including interns) to conduct annual anti-sexual harassment training beginning on April 1, 2019 for all employees, including supervisors and managers. The training is required for all employees who work more than 80 hours in a calendar year and for new employees within 90 days of hire. The training must cover a range of topics, including a statement that harassment is a form of discrimination under state and federal law; a description of sexual harassment (including examples of what constitutes harassment); internal complaint procedures for an employee to make a harassment complaint; information about the complaint process under local, state, and federal law (including agency contact information); prohibitions on retaliation; information about bystander...

USPTO Issues Guidance Applying SAS Institute to Pending and Future PTAB Trials

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On May 1, 2018

On April 26, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a guidance, applying SAS Institute v. Iancu to the America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court in SAS Institute held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the original petition. The USPTO guidance gives a general outline of how the PTAB will review patents in the future, and how it will handle cases that are already pending. The memo makes clear that the PTAB will no longer have partial institutions: “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” For pending trials in which the PTAB has instituted trial on only some of the petitioned claims, “the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” The final written decision will address, to the extent claims are still pending at the time of decision, “all patent claims challenged by the petitioner and all new claims added through the amendment process.” When supplementing the institution decision, the panel has discretion to manage the trial proceeding. The panel may permit “additional time, briefing, discovery, and/or oral argument, depending on...

Howard Geneslaw Argues Before NJ Supreme Court in Dunbar Homes on Behalf of NJ State Bar Association

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On May 1, 2018

On Monday, April 9, 2018, Howard D. Geneslaw, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property Department, argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association (“NJSBA”) as an amicus curiae in the matter of Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin. The NJSBA was one of several amici involved in this case of first impression on the key question of when a submission to a municipal planning board is considered an “application for development” for purposes of being afforded protection under the “time of application” rule. The “time of application” rule provides that the zoning regulations which govern the review of an application for development are those in effect at the time it is submitted. The issue to be decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court centers on what constitutes submission of an application for development which allows the applicant to invoke the protection of the “time of application” rule. The Appellate Division, in a reported decision, ruled that protection is not available until an applicant submits all documents specified in the municipality’s application checklist adopted by ordinance, although the application need not have been deemed complete for protection to vest, but did not address what occurs when the checklist is...

Stronger Patents Act Introduced in House of Representatives

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Biotech / Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On April 30, 2018

On April 3, 2018, Representatives Steve Stivers and Bill Foster introduced H.R. 5340, entitled Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act implementation. This legislation parallels legislation introduced by Senators Chris Coons and Tom Cotton last year. This bill was introduced because its sponsors believe that the U.S. has driven innovation away with issues that particularly relate to the America Invents Act (AIA). The bill has the following portions in Section 102: Section A – Requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to use the same standard as District Courts when deciding what inventions the patent covers – claim construction. Currently, the PTAB uses the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and does not consider all of the evidence of a valid patent claim. Section B – Requires the PTAB to use the same burden of proof – clear and convincing evidence – that is used by District Courts. Right now, the PTAB uses the preponderance of the evidence standard. Section C – Ensures that a petitioner has a business or financial reason to bring the case before the PTAB. This is in direct response to the stockholder suits that have been brought in the PTAB against certain companies. Section D – Authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office...