Category: Administrative & Regulatory

Supreme Court Nixes "Amorphous" Federal Circuit Indefiniteness Standard

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, replacing the test used to determine whether a patent is indefinite with a new reasonable certainty standard (NAUTILUS, INC. v. BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC., No. 13–369 (S. Ct. June 2, 2014).

The new reasonable certainty test raises the bar on the “clarity and precision” with whichpatents must be written. As a consequence, the burden on accused infringers attempting to invalidate patents based on ambiguous language is lowered. This new standard will prove especially helpful in the ongoing battle against patent trolls, who often wield portfolios of ambiguous or overly broad patents in an attempt to extract licensing fees. Tech companies, including Google, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., which are frequent targets of patent trolls, urged the Supreme Court to adopt the “reasonable certainty” standard.

The new standard will also require more precision in drafting and prosecuting patent applications. Exactly how precise language will need to be remains to be seen, but the Court explained that the old standard incentivized patent applicants and practitioners to “inject ambiguity” into their claims. The new standard was established, in part, to eliminate this incentive. The Court commented that patent practitioners are in the best position to resolve ambiguity in patent claims. In light of the Supreme Court’s admonition, patent applicants and practitioners seeking broad coverage of their inventions should use language no broader than necessary to adequately cover their inventions.

The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a dispute between Biosig Instruments and Nautilus, Inc. Biosig sued Nautilus for infringement of a patented heart monitor for exercise machines, which registered electrical waves to estimate a user’s heart rate. Nautilus convinced the trial court that Biosig’s patent was invalid as indefinite. Applying its “insolubly ambiguous” test, the Federal Circuit found the patent valid. Biosig sought review by the Supreme Court.

Justice Ginsberg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. As embodied in the Patent Act, a patent must include “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant claims as his invention.”

This notice requirement is satisfied, the Court held, where the claims of the patent, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informs with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Like any property right, the boundaries of the patent monopoly should be clear. The failure to afford the public clear notice of what is claimed, “thereby appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them,” chills innovation by creating a risk of infringement in “zones of uncertainty.”

The High Court remanded the case with instructions that the Federal Circuit should no longer employ the “insolubly ambiguous” or “amenable to construction” tests of patent claim indefiniteness under 35 USC § 112, ¶ 2. These words can “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass.” While noting that the Supreme Court does not “micromanage the Federal Circuit’s particular word choice” in applying patent-law doctrines, Justice Ginsberg wrote, “we must ensure that the Federal Circuit’s test is at least ‘probative of the essential inquiry.’”

The Federal Circuit test, according to the High Court, “invoked a standard more amorphous than the statutory definiteness requirement allows.” In addition to breeding lower court confusion, the discredited “insolubly ambiguous” standard tolerated “some ambiguous claims but not others….” The Court’s new reasonable certainty standard requires more definite claim language.

Article By:

David W. Harlan
Jessica M. Mendez
Patrick Coyle
Samir R. Mehta
Of:
Armstrong Teasdale

U.S. Consular Posts in Canada Temporarily Suspend Nonimmigrant Visa Processing for TCNs (Third Country Nationals)

Morgan Lewis

Third Country Nationals may be unable to schedule nonimmigrant visa appointments at U.S. consulates and embassies throughout Canada this summer.

U.S. consular posts in Canada have temporarily suspended nonimmigrant visa processing for Third Country Nationals (TCNs) during June, July, and August because of staffing issues. In this context, “TCN” refers to any non-Canadian national applying for a U.S. nonimmigrant visa in Canada. The status of TCN visa application processing in Canada is as follows:

  • The only posts with remaining availability during the month of September are Calgary and Vancouver.
  • The Toronto and Ottawa posts are currently scheduling visa appointments in October and do not plan to release any earlier appointments during the summer months.
  • Applicants whose appointments have already been scheduled during the summer months will not be affected.
  • Applicants who reside in Canada with Canadian immigration status will also not be affected.

The Ottawa post may assist in scheduling appointments for applicants who hold senior or executive positions with their U.S. employers.

Article By:

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Malcolm K. Goeschl
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
Of:
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Congress and the President Spar over Immigration Reform Prospects: Tempest in a Teapot

Jackson Lewis Logo

At a recent White House law enforcement event, President Barack Obama took the opportunity to pressure Republicans in the House of Representatives to present an immigration reform bill this summer in advance of the November mid-term elections.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made comments supportive of immigration reform and issued a “statement of principles” developed by House Republican leadership addressing immigration reform in January. As reported by the Cincinnati Inquirer, the Speaker was careful earlier this month to distinguish that proposed roadmap to legal status for some illegal aliens from an outright amnesty.  ”I reject that premise. … If you come in and plead guilty and pay a fine, that’s not amnesty,” he said.  Regardless of how reform measures are characterized, though, patience is flagging and significant progress remains stubbornly elusive.

The President’s comments on immigration reform, while also asking his secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, to delay releasing details of a recent study on the country’s deportation system, were seen as giving lawmakers time to propose and debate new legislation,   but continuing to hold out the threat of an executive order should Congress fail to act.  Activists on the left are pressuring the President to act. They urge an executive order similar to the one issued in 2012 extending temporary status and work authorization to some unauthorized aliens brought to the U.S. as children. The new measure for example, could extend the same type of protection to parents of those children, advocates contend.

Nearly two million illegal immigrants have been deported since the President took office, according to a New York Times review and official records. The President asked the DHS secretary to evaluate how to make the deportation system more humane.  Further executive action on immigration may spur additional controversy and make comprehensive immigration reform negotiations in Congress more difficult.

An example of this type of challenge is in seen in the obstacles besetting the bi-partisan “ENLIST Act“(H.R. 2377), a bill designed to extend legal permanent residence to immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children and who enlist in the U.S. armed forces.  Hopes for easy passage have been set back.    Contrary to the expectations of many supporters, including the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), the measure was not taken up for discussion as part of the annual defense bill.   This is discouraging for proponents of reform.   Political brinksmanship, rather than a genuine willingness address the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system, appears to be the order of the day.

Article By:

Sean G. Hanagan
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Settlement Between U.S. Department of Labor and Oregon Blueberry Growers Vacated

Varnum LLP

In 2012, the Department of Labor accused Oregon blueberry growers of employing “ghost workers” resulting in minimum wage violations. The DOL then issued what is known as a “hot goods order” to block shipment of their product to market until the violations were remedied.  This, of course, created an untenable situation for the blueberry producers as their products were highly perishable. With no real alternative, the blueberry growers signed consent agreements with the DOL, in which they agreed to substantial fines and waived their rights to contest the allegations.

The blueberry growers later challenged the consent judgment and in January a federal magistrate judge agreed with the growers finding that “the tactic of putting millions of dollars of perishable goods in lock up was unlawfully coercive.” That decision was upheld just last week by the United States district judge. Invaliding consent judgments, particularly those with the federal government, is extremely difficult and rarely happens. But in this case, the combination of over-the-top, coercive of tactics by the DOL, as well as the court’s view that there was little or no evidence of underlying labor violations to begin with, paved the way for the growers in this case.

Article By:

Aaron M. Phelps
Of:
Varnum LLP

Colorado’s Cutting Edge Legislation Fosters Clean Fuel Truck Adoption

Lewis Roca Rothgerber

 

The State of Colorado recently passed HB 14-1326, the “Clean Trucks Bill,” catapulting itself into the group of cutting edge states that are on the forefront of the clean fuel issue. Recognizing that trucks represent a huge opportunity for emissions reductions by replacing diesel engine trucks with trucks reliant on clean fuels, the Clean Trucks Bill paves the way for improved air quality, reduction in greenhouse gases, promotion ofdomestic energy sources and ultimately, cost savings for industry and for consumers. The bill, which passed the Colorado Senate unamended from the version previously passed by the House, was sent to Governor Hickenlooper on May 12, 2014. The Governor is expected to sign the bill and pass it into law soon.

The Clean Trucks Bill employs several components to promote clean fuels. The bill recognizes that the expense of clean fuel trucks over their traditional fuel counterparts leaves clean fuel trucks at a competitive disadvantage, with clean fuel trucks costing between 25 and 75 percent more. As such, the bill expands the alternative fuel tax credit targeting trucks. While existing tax credits provided incentives for compressed natural gas and propane trucks, the bill broadens the category of eligible fuels by incorporating hydrogen and liquefied natural gas into the credit-eligible fuels. Electric or hybrid-electric vehicles greater than 8,500 pounds in gross vehicle weight ratio (GVWR) also become eligible for the tax credit. Additionally, the bill introduces tax credits for heavy duty trucks (greater than 26,000 GVWR) and expands tax credit eligibility to light and medium-duty trucks.

By promoting broader adoption of clean fuel trucks, eventually market development and economies of scale will cause clean fuel trucks to become more cost competitive. The bill provides an 8-year period to achieve those economies of scale, paring down the percentage of a clean fuel truck purchase or conversion that is eligible for the tax credit over that time period. However, the maximum amount of the credit remains constant over the life of the legislation; heavy-duty trucks are eligible for up to $20,000 in tax credits per income tax year, medium-duty trucks up to $15,000 per income tax year, and light-duty trucks up to $7,500 per income tax year.

But the Clean Trucks Bill didn’t stop at a package of clean fuel truck purchase or conversion tax credits. Aerodynamic technologies proven to improve fuel efficiency and clean fuel refrigerated trailers also gained eligibility for tax credits. (Previously, tax credits were only available for idling reduction technologies.) The importance of the inclusion of clean fuel trailers cannot be understated, as fleets prefer to use the same fuel for the truck as the trailer, and the tax credit provides an incentive for the purchase or conversion of the clean fuel trailer in companion with the clean fuel truck.

The Clean Trucks Bill also updates the sales tax exemption for low-emitting vehicles over 10,000 GVWR. Today, virtually every vehicle over 10,000 GVWR meets the eligibility requirements for the sales tax exemption. The Clean Trucks Bill limits that sales tax exemption to trucks meeting more stringent standards.

The final element of the Clean Trucks Bill eliminates the specific ownership tax penalty for purchasing a clean fuel truck. Because the specific ownership tax is based on the purchase price of a vehicle, clean fuel trucks with their higher purchase price stand at a disadvantage to traditional fuel trucks with a lower purchase price. The Clean Trucks Bill abrogates that penalty by reducing the price at which clean trucks are valued for purposes of the specific ownership tax to an amount comparable to traditional fuel vehicles. By equalizing the tax value of a clean fuel truck with a traditional fuel truck, local government recipients of specific ownership tax revenues are unaffected from a revenue standpoint.

The benefits of the Clean Trucks Bill are many. First, the bill stimulates Colorado’s economy by promoting trucks using clean fuels, of which Colorado is a major producer. The bill also supports reduced emissions and improved air quality by providing an incentive for cleaner fuel trucks. Finally, the bill encourages energy independence through the promotion of domestically-produced clean fuels like natural gas and propane, as well as hydrogen and liquefied natural gas. It’s not often legislation of this magnitude can be widely perceived as a win-win, but Colorado is on the eve of becoming one of few states to accomplish such a feat.

Article By:

Dave McGimpsey
Of:
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

Michigan Commission of Agriculture Approves Revised Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices' (GAAMP) Limiting Scope of Right to Farm Act

Varnum LLP

For over a year, the Michigan Ag Commission has considered expanding the scope of the “site selection” GAAMPs in order to bring even small livestock facilities within its scope. The site selection GAAMPs have traditionally applied to very large livestock production facilities, such as those that have at least 5,000 laying hens, 35 mature dairy cattle or 50 feeder cattle, and required those farms to be sited in agricultural areas. Consequently, because there were no siting requirements for small farms, these farms could be in urban areas – often contrary to zoning, which resulted in some conflict.

The Michigan Ag Commission recently voted to revise the site selection GAAMPs to eliminate the minimum animal threshold. Thus, the site selection GAAMPs now apply to all farms, and to comply with those GAAMPs, farms must be located in areas where local zoning allows for agricultural uses. Thus, the GAAMPs and local zoning are now in harmony rather than conflict.

According to Trevor Meachum, Vice-Chair of the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development, “Local control is about being a good neighbor, and these GAAMPs – if farmers follow them – help people remain good neighbors.  Different communities have different ideas about what they want, and this accommodates those communities.” The changes to the GAAMPs were also endorsed by Michigan Farm Bureau. According to Matt Kapp, Government Relation Specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, the new GAAMPs do not forbid livestock; they just allow for local decision-making. “While we think that will remove some conflicts, and if this new GAAMP does that, then it creates good neighbors. That’s what right-to-farm is all about, and that’s good public policy.”

Article By:

Aaron M. Phelps
Of:
Varnum LLP

Working Through Lunch: An Update on the Legal Risks

Barnes Burgandy Logo

Regular readers of this blog know that we’ve previously alerted you to the risks of using timekeeping software that automatically deducts the lunch hour from employees’ paychecks.  As we’ve explained before, such software can expose employers to liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act because, for one reason or another, employees sometimes work through lunch. And, even if an employer has a system in place for employees to request pay for lunchtime work, that is no “get out of jail free card,” because employees who bring FLSA lawsuits commonly argue that they did not use – or were discouraged from using – the system.

A lawsuit that was filed earlier this month in Texas federal court gives us another reason to sound the alert.  In Corcione v. Houston Methodist, the plaintiff alleges that she – and a class of some 5,000 nurses, nurses assistants, patient care assistants and other employees at seven different medical facilities – were required to keep their cellphones on hand during their meal breaks in case they were needed to respond to emergencies. And, even though the employers had systems in place for requesting pay for lunchtime work, the plaintiff claims that managers discouraged employees from making such requests. The plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid wages (for the time claimed to have been worked, including overtime pay), liquidated damages, and legal fees.  In other words, the plaintiff wants tens of millions of dollars.

A policy requiring nurses (and similar employees) to be available so that they can respond to emergencies probably seems reasonable to you, and we feel the same way. Work “emergencies” aren’t limited to the medical field, of course, and many other types of employers have similar policies – written or unwritten. If you’re one of them, just remember that the ramifications of such policies can land you on the wrong side of the FLSA if you’re not careful. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again:  Work time must be compensated.  Even if that “work time” comes during what – on a normal day – would have been “lunch time.”

Article By:

James F. Ehrenberg
Of:
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference- June 23-25, Chicago, IL

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the 2nd Conflict Minerals Reporting and Supply Chain Transparency Conference, June 24-25, 2014, presented by Marcus Evans.Conflict-Minerals-250-x-250

Click here to register.

Where

Chicago, IL

When

June 24-25, 2014

What

The 2nd Sustaining Conflict Minerals Compliance Conference will break down each SEC filing requirement as well as examine direct filing examples from specific companies. Discussions will tackle key issues including refining conflict minerals teams to create a more successful conflict minerals management program, managing and developing consistent communication within the supply chain, and building an IT program that will continue to secure data from the various levels of the supply chain.

This conference will allow organizations to benchmark their conflict minerals management program against their peers to more efficiently meet SEC expectations and amend their program for future filings. Seating is limited to maintain and intimate educational environment that will cultivate the knowledge and experience of all participants.

Key Topics
  • Scrutinize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements and evaluate external resources for a more efficient conflict minerals rule with Newport News Shipbuilding, Huntington Ingalls Industries
  • Engineer a sustainable conflict minerals program for future filings with Alcatel-Lucent
  • Integrate filings and best practices from the first year of reporting with BlackBerry
  • Maintain a strong rapport with all tiers of your supply chain to increase transparency with KEMET
  • Obtain complete responses moving throughout the supply chain with Global Advanced Metals

Register today!

New York Federal Court Rejects Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction Arguments in “All Natural” Case

GT Law

In our February 12, 2014 post, entitled “Consumer Class Actions Trending From Attacking ‘All Natural’ to ‘Raw,’” we addressed whether claims challenging consumer product advertising as “all natural” were preempted in the absence of specific guidance from the FDA and the mixed results the argument has produced.  In Ault v. J.M. Smucker Co. et al., 2014 WL 1998235 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2014), the Court denied a motion to dismiss based on preemption and primary jurisdiction where the plaintiff alleged that it was deceived into purchasing Smucker’s Crisco oil by “all natural” advertising where the product contained genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, because the FDA has not addressed the use of the term “all natural” in this context.

All Natural

Smuckers argued that FDA policies regarding the use of the term “natural” preempt state law false advertising claims based on this language, even if those policies are informal.  However, the Court found, “no federal specifications exist here.”  Id. at *3.  And “[e]ven if an informal FDA definition does exist, the term ‘natural’ ‘may be used in numerous contexts and may convey different meanings depending on that context[]” [citation,] [and] “that is one of the reasons the FDA has never adopted a formal definition.”  Id. (citing Pelayo v. Nestle USA, Inc.,<“> No. CV 13–5213, 2013 WL 5764644, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 25, 2013)).  In addition, “the FDA has declined to consider the specific issue here:  whether and under what circumstances food products containing ingredients produced using genetically engineered ingredients may or may not be labeled ‘natural.’”  Id. (citation and some internal quotation marks omitted).  “As a result,” the Court found, “any general, informal FDA guidance is not controlling.”  Id. (citing In re Frito–Lay N. Am., Inc. All Natural Litig., No. 12–md–2413,2013 WL 4647512, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2013)).

The Court also rejected Smucker’s argument that the FDA’s decision not to impose a labeling requirement for foods with GMOs supports preemption, stating, “[i]n effect, Defendant interprets the FDA’s lack of action as approval for Defendant’s use of the phrase ‘All Natural’ to describe foods containing GMO [but] [i]n reality, the FDA has stayed silent because it ‘operates in a world of limited resources’ where it ‘must prioritize which issues to address.’”  Id. (citation omitted.)

In addition, the Court found Smucker’s primary jurisdiction argument unavailing:  “three federal district judges previously referred the question of whether foods containing GMOs may be labeled ‘natural’ to the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine [and on] January 6, 2014, the FDA responded and explicitly declined to make such a determination.”  Id. at *4 (citing January 6, 2014 FDA Letter).  “The FDA’s refusal to consider the question demonstrates that ‘resort to the agency at this time would be unavailing,’ [citation] and therefore weighs against applying the primary jurisdiction doctrine.”  Id.

This case signals that, until the FDA acts, preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments against “all natural” advertising of products with GMOs may be more and more challenging.

Article By:

Jordan D. Grotzinger
Of:
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

EPA’s Power-Plant Cooling Water Rule Takes a Surprise Endangered Species Turn

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

A surprise awaits those who reach page 334 of the 559-page preamble to EPA’s final cooling-water-intake rule – a potentially significant expansion of the Endangered Species Act.   

The rule, which EPA has not yet officially published, is intended to protect aquatic species affected by cooling water intake at power plants and other large facilities.  It is the result of a lawsuit by environmental groups, settled by EPA, and delayed on several occasions.  Most recently, the rule was hung up as a result of concerns voiced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) about whether the final rule would do enough to protect threatened and endangered species.  EPA thought it would; the Services disagreed.  The Services’ concerns eventually caused EPA to miss a court-ordered deadline to publish the final rule.

Now that the rule is out, it appears that, in order to finally get the Service’s approval, EPA included in the final rule a first-of-its kind process that expands the Endangered Species Act to entities that previously didn’t have to comply with it.  Understanding why requires a paragraph of background:

The ESA applies to (1) anyone who might harm or harass a listed species and (2) federal government actions in general.  Federal government compliance typically involves a process under Section 7 of the Act called “consultation,” which essentially involves the agency working with the Services to determine if the action will harm species or their habitat.  Many federal environmental responsibilities are carried out at the state level, including issuing clean water act permits like the ones involved in the 316(b) rule.  But states don’t have to engage in consultation when they undertake these federal responsibilities.  Until now.

EPA’s 316(b) rule doesn’t call the new process consultation, but it looks a lot like it.  Consultation involves the federal action agency, in concert with the Services, determining whether the action will jeopardize the recovery of protected species or adversely modify their habitat.  Often, if the Services conclude that there might be an ESA issue, they recommend project changes to eliminate the possibility.  Since projects can’t go forward if the Services believe species or their habitat will be adversely affected, these recommended changes are usually adopted by the action agency.

The new 316(b) process looks very similar: The state drafts a 316(b) permit for a facility’s cooling-water intake structure.  But rather than finalize it and send it to the facility, which they do for every other clean water act permit, the state will send a copy of the draft 316(b) permit to the Services.  The Services may then provide “recommendations” on the permit.  If they do, the state must include those recommendations in the permit and the facility receiving the permit must implement them.  If not, the facility is in violation of 316(b). 

In other words, just as in consultation, the Services are consulted about impacts to species and their habitat.  If the Services have concerns, they will provide recommended changes to the State permit writer.  The State has to adopt those changes and the facility has to implement them or else the project can’t go forward.  Thus, for the first time, states issuing federal permits will have to function like a federal agency for Section 7 purposes.  We’ve attached a copy of the Services’ flowchart of the process below (in the flowchart, the state is referred to as the “Director.”). 

We’ll be following this process closely, both to see if it is challenged and to see if it spreads to other federal clean water or clean air act permitting carried out at the state level.

EPA

Article By:

Lowell M. Rothschild
Of:
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP