Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

A Review of 2015 Green Patent Suits Filed

Posted in Patent

On February 22, 2016

A summary review of green patent complaints filed in 2015 reveals that LED and Smart Grid technologies were the primary areas of dispute. Complaints filed in 2015 in areas such as biofuels, hybrid vehicles, and solar reflect the growth in clean energy patents issued in these technology sectors. LED Technology – The Federal Energy Star website says that LED lighting, when designed well, is different from incandescent and compact fluorescent lighting in that LED lighting is more efficient, durable, versatile, and longer lasting. In line with the growth of LED technology, this LED technology led with the number of patent complaints filed in 2015. At the end of 2015, Bluestone Innovations LLC filed 13 complaints against not only other LED manufacturers, but also retailers asserting infringement of Bluestone’s U.S. Patent No. 6,163,557, which directs to group III-V nitride films. The accused products in Bluestone’s suits are LED lightbulbs with group III-V nitride epitaxial films.

Supreme Court Holds Unaccepted Offer of Judgment for Complete Relief to Named Plaintiff in Putative Class Action Does Not Moot Claims

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On February 18, 2016

The Supreme Court of the United States recently issued its ruling in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, a closely watched appeal in which the Court held that a complete offer of relief to a named plaintiff in a class action does not moot the individual’s claim. As explained by Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority and drawing upon lessons taught to a “first-year law student,” an unaccepted settlement offer “creates no lasting right or obligation,” “has no force,” and, thus, “is a legal nullity, with no operative effect” that “does not moot a plaintiff’s case.” The Court’s opinion follows up on its 2013 decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, in which it assumed that an offer of complete relief, even if unaccepted, moots a plaintiff’s individual claim to the extent the plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective-action allegations could not stand on their own.

Federal Circuit to PTAB: Explain Yourself

by Samuel H. Megerditchian

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On February 18, 2016

On January 22, 2016, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in an America Invents Act review, after ruling that the PTAB did not adequately describe its reasons for finding a Cutsforth Inc. brush holder patent invalid.

Proportionality Carries the Day: Amended FRCP 26 Cited to Quash Overbroad Subpoenas

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 16, 2016

As practitioners are well aware, the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on December 1, 2015. In one of the first applications of amended Rule 26(b)(1), Magistrate Judge James Cott in the Southern District of New York utilized it to quash several overbroad subpoenas. In Henry v. Morgan’s Hotel Group, Inc., plaintiff Phillip Henry, a gay black man, sued his former employer, defendant Morgan’s Hotel Group, for race and sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation. Henry alleged that his former supervisor routinely disparaged him with racial and homophobic remarks.

Supreme Court to Review First AIA Trials Case

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On February 16, 2016

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, in which it will review the first Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) created under the America Invents Act. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuzzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, in which it will review the first Inter Partes Review (IPR) decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) created under the America Invents Act. The Court will specifically review: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, in an IPR proceeding, the PTAB may construe claims in an issued patent according to their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (“BRI”) rather than their “plain and ordinary meaning;” and Even if the Board exceeded its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially non-reviewable.

N.Y. Court Grants Spoliation Sanctions for Destruction of Documents Decades Ago

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 11, 2016

In Warren v. Amchem Products, Inc., Justice Peter Moulton sanctioned defendant J-M Manufacturing Company for destroying documents in 1990 and 1997 – 24 years and 17 years, respectively, before the Warren Estate filed suit against asbestos manufacturers in 2014. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion for spoliation sanctions and ordered that, should the case proceed to trial, the jury will be instructed that it may infer that the destroyed documents would have supported plaintiff’s claims and would not have supported J-M’s defenses.

NJ High Court Clarifies Standard for Revocation of Direct Access to State Highway from Commercial Property

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On February 11, 2016

In its recent decision in In Re Revocation of the Access of Block #613, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the standard governing the revocation of direct access from a State highway to a property used for commercial purposes under the State Highway Access Management Act and the State Highway Access Management Code. The case outlines the requisite procedure for revocation of a commercial property’s direct access to a State highway by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT).

The Walls Have Ears: NLRB Invalidates Employer’s Prohibition on Recording in the Workplace

by Susan L. Nardone

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On February 10, 2016

Whole Foods Markets received the proverbial ugly holiday sweater in the form of a December 24, 2015, 2-1 decision by the National Labor Relations Board that declared its policy prohibiting recording in the workplace unlawful. The decision in the cases Whole Foods Markets, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 919 and Workers Organizing Committee of Chicago, focused on two rules contained in Whole Foods’ General Information Guide. The first prohibited the recording of meetings, with the laudable, express goals of encouraging “open communication, free expression of ideas, spontaneous and honest dialogue and an atmosphere of trust.” The only exceptions were when the recording was approved by management or all parties to the conversation consented. The second rule also prohibited the use of a recording device in order to “eliminate a chilling effect on the expression of views that may exist when one person is concerned that his or her conversation with another is being secretly recorded.” Seems fair, right? Not according to the NLRB.

N.Y. High Court Weighs in on Failure to Issue Litigation Hold

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On February 10, 2016

In Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., the New York Court of Appeals held that failure to preserve ESI was simple, not gross, negligence, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the destroyed evidence was relevant to the plaintiff’s claims and what sanction, if any, is appropriate.

New “Privacy Shield” Agreement Seeks to Resurrect a Safe Harbor for EU-U.S. Data Transfers – Can it Succeed?

by Jeffrey L. Nagel

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules / Technology Developments and Issues

On February 4, 2016

On February 2, 2016, the EU Commission and U.S. Department of Justice announced the framework of a deal to allow transatlantic data transfers between the EU and U.S. without running afoul of Europe’s strict data protection directives. It was appropriate that the announcement came on Groundhog Day, because we have been here before.