Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Safe Harbor 2.0: Still a Work in Process

Posted in E-Commerce / Privacy and Data Security

On December 17, 2015

Last month, judges from the European Court of Justice, the European Union’s top court, issued a judgment striking down a 15-year old agreement, known as the Safe Harbor framework, which allowed American and European businesses to freely move personal data between the two regions. This ruling impacts nearly 4,000 businesses that currently rely on Safe Harbor framework to transfer data between the U.S. and Europe and requires all businesses to revaluate their compliance with Europeans standards.

Heightened Pleading Requirement for Direct Patent Infringement Action Effective December 1, 2015

by Christopher H. Strate

Posted in Patent

On December 2, 2015

On December 1, 2015, revised Federal Rule Civil Procedures went into effect and changed pleading requirements for patent cases. The new rules were adopted by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2015, based on recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States and will eliminate Form 18. Form 18 set for a bare bones requirement for patent infringement complaint and merely required the plaintiff to provide notice of its claims. Form 18 simply required: (1) an allegation of jurisdiction; (2) a statement that plaintiff owns the patents; (3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent by making, selling and using the device embodying the patent; (4) a statement that plaintiff has given the defendant notice of its infringement; and (5) a demand for injunction and/or damages.

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015 Would Create a Federal Private Right of Action for the Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in E-Commerce / Privacy and Data Security

On November 24, 2015

On July 29, 2015, with bipartisan support, Congressional leaders in both the House and the Senate introduced identical bills, HR 3326 and S. 1890, respectively, entitled, the “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015” (“DTSA 2015”). The proposed legislation attempts to authorize a private civil action in federal court for the misappropriation of a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. Additionally, the proposed legislations seeks to (a) create a uniform standard for trade secret misappropriation; (b) provide parties pathways to injunctive relief and compensatory damages; and (c) create remedies for trade secret misappropriation that are similar to other violations of intellectual property rights, for example, including exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees available in the event of willful and malicious misappropriation of a trade secret. An interesting feature of the DTSA 2015 is the availability of an ex parte seizure order for plaintiffs fearful of the dissemination of their trade secret(s). The proposed ex parte seizure allows for the government to seize property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret prior to giving notice of the lawsuit to the defendant.

“Mere Continued Employment” is Insufficient Consideration for Non-Compete Agreement in Pennsylvania

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Restrictive Covenants

On November 24, 2015

Last week, in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that restrictive covenants not to compete are unenforceable if made during a worker’s term of employment unless supported by “new and valuable consideration, beyond mere continued employment.” That is so, according to the Court, even if the agreement contains language that would otherwise obviate the requirement of consideration pursuant to the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”). That statute provides that “[a] written release or promise . . . shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement, in any form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.”

Settlement Update on New Jersey Tax Court’s Closely-Watched AHS Hospital Decision

by Russell B. Bershad

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On November 13, 2015

Several months ago, this blog reported on Judge Vito Bianco’s denial of Morristown Memorial Hospital’s (the “Hospital”) property tax appeal. While this was only a Tax Court decision, it was closely-watched because it had the potential to eviscerate the property tax exemption for modern integrated hospitals, and potentially for other nonprofit organizations with complicated corporate structures or relationships.

District Court Issues Opinion on “Fair Use” of Viral Videos

by Paolo A. Strino

Posted in Copyright

On November 12, 2015

In Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., the United States District Court for the Central District of California presented an informative “fair use” analysis in a dispute between two media companies over viral videos. The Court’s decision highlights the fact-sensitive nature of the doctrine of fair use. It also clarifies the extent to which a use must be transformative in order to be deemed fair use.

Illinois Court Refuses to Release Frozen Funds or Enlarge Bond Amount in Trademark Counterfeiting Case

by Wendy R. Stein

Posted in Trademark Counterfeiting / Trademarks

On November 11, 2015

A federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois has refused a request by certain defendants accused of trademark counterfeiting to release funds frozen in PayPal accounts and to increase the amount of a bond posted by the plaintiff in the case. The case highlights an uptick in challenges to financial asset restraints by defendants and nonparties in trademark counterfeiting cases and the discretion courts have in setting an appropriate bond to protect defendants in such cases.

NJ Legislature Considers Invalidating NJDEP Regulations

by Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On November 11, 2015

On June 1, 2015, after significant outreach to the relevant stakeholders, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) released for public comment sweeping proposed changes to the rules governing Coastal Zone Management (CZM), N.J.A.C. 7:7E-1.1 et seq., Stormwater Management (SWM), N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.1 et seq., and the Flood Hazard Area Control Act (FHACA), N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.1 et seq. However, the New Jersey Legislature is poised to use its constitutional authority to find that the proposed regulations are inconsistent with the legislative intent of the enabling statutes.

New Jersey Appellate Court Rules Redeveloper Cannot Compel Amendments to Redevelopment Plan

by Howard D. Geneslaw

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On November 10, 2015

Redevelopment agreements are the tool used to memorialize the respective obligations of the redeveloper and the municipality to effectuate a redevelopment project. Often, a concept plan has been agreed upon, but changes to the site-specific zoning embodied in the redevelopment plan are necessary in order for the project to advance. In an unpublished decision earlier this year, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, ruled in Fieldstone Associates, L.P. v. Borough of Merchantville, A-1239-13T3, that the municipality cannot be contractually compelled to adopt such amendments.

Fifth Circuit Upholds Arbitration Agreement Prohibiting Class/Collective Actions and Cautions NLRB to Reconsider Board Policy

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Alternative Dispute Resolution

On November 5, 2015

Last week, in Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims on an individual basis, thereby reaffirming its holding in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, despite the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) aggressive attempt to find arbitration agreements unlawful. The case is noteworthy because the court rebuffed the Board’s effort to circumvent D.R. Horton and cautioned the NLRB “to strike a more respectful balance between its views and those of circuit courts” that review them. One wonders whether the NLRB will change its current stance against arbitration agreements that prohibit class/collective actions. Regardless, the Fifth Circuit’s decision helps to settle the current state of the law at the circuit court level that arbitration agreements and class/collective action waivers are lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).