Category: Global

Ongoing Canadian Protests Shine Spotlight on Ripple Effect of Supply Chain Disruptions

Although the last two years have seen a nearly never-ending line of supply chain impacts for manufacturers, the latest disruption is also serving to shine a spotlight on the broader impact that relatively small disruptions in the supply chain can have on the global economy.  We all know that trucking is a critical component of the economy.  The U.S. estimates seventy two percent of goods in the U.S. travel by truck.  Trucking has become even more important in this era of increased deliveries and backlogs at ports and other logistics hubs.

In Canada, what began as protests by truckers regarding certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates have snowballed into broader protests and blockages of roads, bridges, and border crossings.

Protesters have been blocking various bridges and roads in Canada in protest of certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates.  On Tuesday, the bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario to Detroit (a critical linkage for cross-border travel) was largely blocked, with traffic stopped going into Canada and slowed to a trickle going into the United States. The blockades are now leading U.S. automakers to begin trimming shifts and pausing certain operations in their Michigan and Canadian plants. The bridge protests and automakers’ reduction in capacity continued on Thursday without an end in sight.

The ongoing protests in Canada have also served as a reminder of how seemingly local trucking disruptions in one country can cascade through the supply chain.  This is not the first time that trucking strikes and blockages have rippled through the supply chain and economy.  In 1996, a truckers’ strike in France lasted 12 days, barricading major highways and ultimately leading to concessions from the French government over certain worker benefits and hours.  The resulting agreement led to heightened tensions with Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain due to the impact felt across borders.  In 2008, truckers went on strike in Spain and blocked roads and border crossings, protesting fuel prices.  In 2018, truckers in Brazil staged a large strike and protest that lasted for 10 days, blocking roads, disrupting food and fuel distribution, canceling flights, and causing certain part shortages for automakers.

The ongoing protests in Canada have similarly expanded from Ottawa to the current blockage of border crossings, further raising their profile internationally as they begin to impact global trade.  It remains to be seen how the blockades and protests will resolve, as leaders call for de-escalation and re-opening of roads and crossings.  However, the ripple effects of what started as a localized protest will continue to be felt far beyond Canada’s borders.

Article By Lauren M. Loew of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more COVID-19 and supply chain legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Canada: Upcoming Legislative Changes Taking Effect in January 2022

As we ring in the new year, there are a number of legislative changes that will take effect, impacting workplaces across Canada. Below are the significant changes taking effect by January 1, 2022.

Increase to the Federal Minimum Wage

Effective December 29, 2021, the minimum wage for the federally regulated private sector increased to $15.00 per hour. The Government of Canada announced this wage increase on April 19, 2021. According to the government, the wages of approximately 26,000 employees have increased as a result of this change. Some of the sectors impacted include:

  • banks;
  • postal and courier services;
  • telecommunications; and
  • most federal agencies.

The government will adjust the federal minimum wage every April to address inflation.

Employers in these industry groups may want to keep in mind that impacted employees earning a provincial or territorial minimum wage greater than $15.00 per hour are entitled to the higher wage rate.

British Columbia: Introduction of Five Paid Sick Days

Effective January 1, 2022, employees in British Columbia will have access to five paid sick days per year. To be eligible, employees must be covered by British Columbia’s Employment Standards Act, and they must have worked for their employers for a minimum of 90 days.

Employees will now have up to eight days of sick leave per year in total: five paid days and three unpaid days to be used for illness or injury. These days will not carry over to future years, and employers may request “reasonably sufficient proof of illness.” Though employers are entitled to request proof of illness, in some circumstances the request may not be reasonable.

The reasonableness of a request can be assessed based on:

  • the duration of the employee’s absence;
  • a pattern of absences;
  • the availability of the proof; and
  • the cost associated with the proof.

In cases where the employer’s request is not reasonable, the employee might not have to provide proof of illness.

British Columbia employers may also want to note the following:

  • Full-time, part-time, temporary, and casual employees are covered by the Employment Standards Act and may be eligible for these sick days.
  • Employees are not required to take these sick days consecutively.
  • Employees must be paid an average day’s pay during their sick leave. To calculate the average, employers are required to use the 30 calendar days leading up to the first sick day.

Saskatchewan: Amendments to The Saskatchewan Employment Act

On January 1, 2022, amendments to The Saskatchewan Employment Act, 2021, will take effect, which will make the following changes:

  1. Workplace harassment, including sexual harassment, prohibitions will now protect independent contractors, students, and volunteers.
  2. “Supervisory employees” will now have access to collective bargaining, whereas previously they were presumptively excluded from bargaining units that included employees they supervise.
  3. Mandatory vaccination policies will need to include an option for employees to provide negative COVID-19 test results every seven days, as an alternative to vaccination.

Currently, Saskatchewan’s COVID-19 vaccination regulations allow employees to choose between providing proof of a negative COVID-19 test every seven days, or providing proof of full vaccination. These regulations apply to public employers and to provincially regulated private sector employers that voluntarily implement vaccination policies. To protect these employers from liability, legislators have added a provision to the act covering employers that have complied with the COVID-19 vaccination regulations.

Ontario: Increase to the Minimum Wage

In November 2021, the Government of Ontario announced an increase to the minimum wage effective January 1, 2022. The minimum wage increases are summarized below.

Employees Current Hourly Wage Proposed Hourly Wage
General minimum wage $14.35 $15.00
Students under the age of 18 $13.50 $14.10
Homeworkers (i.e., individuals who work from their  personal residences) $15.80 $16.50
Hunting and fishing guides $71.75 for working less than five consecutive hours in one day $75.00 for working less than five consecutive hours in one day
$143.55 for working five or more hours in one day $150.05 for working five or more hours in one day
Liquor servers $12.55 $15.00

Key Takeaways

As these changes take effect, employers may want to verify whether they will impact their workplaces and adjust their policies and practices accordingly. Employers that are not affected may still find it important to note the trends in Canadian employment legislation because some of these changes may be implemented in their own provinces in the near future. Specifically, both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are set to raise their minimum wage in 2022.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more articles on Canada, visit the NLR Global section.

Patch Up – Log4j and How to Avoid a Cybercrime Christmas

A vulnerability so dangerous that Cybersecurity and Infrastructure (CISA) Director Jen Easterly called it “one of the most serious [she’s] seen in [her] entire career, if not the most serious” arrived just in time for the holidays. On December 10, 2021, CISA and the director of cybersecurity at the National Security Agency (NSA) began alerting the public of a critical vulnerability within the Apache Log4j Java logging framework. Civilian government agencies have been instructed to mitigate against the vulnerability by Christmas Eve, and companies should follow suit.

The Log4j vulnerability allows threat actors to remotely execute code both on-premises and within cloud-based application servers, thereby obtaining control of the impacted servers. CISA expects the vulnerability to affect hundreds of millions of devices. This is a widespread critical vulnerability and companies should quickly assess whether, and to what extent, they or their service providers are using Log4j.

Immediate Recommendations

  • Immediately upgrade all versions of Apache Log4j to 2.15.0.
  • Ask your service providers whether their products or environment use Log4j, and if so, whether they have patched to the latest version. Helpfully, CISA sponsors a community-sourced GitHub repository with a list of software related to the vulnerability as a reference guide.
  • Confirm your security operations are monitoring internet-facing systems for indicators of compromise.
  • Review your incident response plan and ensure all response team information is up to date.
  • If your company is involved in an acquisition, discuss the security steps taken within the target company to address the Log4j vulnerability.

The versatility of this vulnerability has already attracted the attention of malicious nation-state actors. For example, government-affiliated cybercriminals in Iran and China have a “wish list” (no holiday pun intended) of entities that they are aggressively targeting with the Log4j vulnerability. Due to this malicious nation-state activity, if your company experiences a ransomware attack related to the Log4j vulnerability, it is particularly important to pay attention to potential sanctions-related issues.

Companies with additional questions about the Log4j vulnerability and its potential impact on technical threats and potential regulatory scrutiny or commercial liability are encouraged to contact counsel.

Article By Philip J. Bezanson, Brittney E. Justice, Claire E. Cahoon, and Seth D. DuCharme of Bracewell LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Bracewell LLP

Current Pandemic-Related Regulations for Business Travel to the United States, Germany, and the EU

Recently, due to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines, many countries decided to lift their entry restrictions or change them in such a way that travelers who had recovered from COVID-19 infections or been vaccinated were allowed entry. Here is an overview of some of the current entry requirements for international travel.

Entry Into the United States

Since November 8, 2021, individuals have been allowed to enter the United States again from Europe. For 20 months, an entry ban had been in place in the United States for travelers from Brazil, China, India, Iran, Ireland, the Schengen Area (26 countries), South Africa, and the United Kingdom. A proclamation issued by President Joe Biden on October 25, 2021—“A Proclamation on Advancing the Safe Resumption of Global Travel During the COVID-⁠19 Pandemic”—ended these entry restrictions and the need for national interest exceptions (NIE) to the restrictions. Travelers from most countries (a recent U.S. ban on travel from eight African countries took effect on November 29, 2021) may enter the United States if they are fully vaccinated and present negative coronavirus test results (via RT-PCR tests or antigen tests) that are no more than three days old at the time of departure.

Travelers must prove to their airlines that they have been fully vaccinated with internationally recognized vaccines prior to their departures. Currently, the United States recognizes vaccines the Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield, Covaxin, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, BIBP/Sinopharm, and Sinovacvaccines. A traveler’s last vaccination must have taken place at least 14 days before the planned date of travel. The United States accepts the EU Digital COVID Certificate as proof of vaccination.

Exempt groups include persons on diplomatic or governmental foreign travel, children under 18 years of age, and persons who cannot be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine for documented medical reasons. Persons exempt from the October 25, 2021, proclamation’s requirements may enter the United States without being fully vaccinated, but they must quarantine for seven days upon arrival and test for COVID-19 infection three to five days after entry.

Regardless of the COVID-19–related entry requirements, all travelers still need an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) entry permit issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP advises travelers to apply online for ESTA authorization at least 72 hours in advance of departure.

Requirements for Entry Into the European Union

The European Union (EU) has a common approach to travel from third countries to EU member states. Entry requirements are constantly being adapted to the pandemic situation as international travel gradually opens up. Currently, in principle, any person from a third country who has been fully vaccinated with a vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Janssen-Cilag) may enter the European Union. The last vaccination must have taken place at least 14 days before the planned entry.

EU citizens and residents as well as their family members are allowed to enter EU member states without being fully vaccinated. Further exceptions apply to persons for whom absolutely necessary reasons for entry exist. “Absolutely necessary reasons” may exist, among other things, for highly qualified employees from third countries if their labor is necessary from an economic point of view and their work cannot be postponed or carried out abroad.

The EU also maintains a list of countries where the epidemiological situation has improved sufficiently (the so-called “EU White List”), so that entry from these countries is possible regardless of an individual’s vaccination status. This list is constantly updated according to the epidemiological situation. The United States is not currently on the EU White List, so entry from the United States is only possible for fully vaccinated persons.

Each EU member state may set its own additional entry requirements. The EU’s “Re-open EU,” a clearinghouse of information regarding EU member states’ pandemic-related measures, offers an overview of the quarantine and testing requirements of the individual countries.

Requirements for Entry Into Germany

All travelers to Germany from third countries that are not on the EU White List and are not EU citizens or residents must be fully vaccinated. In exceptional cases, entry is possible if it is absolutely necessary.

In addition, all travelers aged 12 or older must provide proof of vaccination. Before crossing the border, proof of vaccination or convalescence, or a test result showing negative for infection (e.g., an antigen test that is no more than 48 hours old or an RT-PCR test that is no more than 72 hours old), must be presented for inspection by the carrier or at the request of the Federal Police.

For previous stays in high-risk or virus-variant areas, digital travel registration is also mandatory. The Robert Koch Institute provides a current list of all high-risk and virus-variant areas.

Nonvaccinated or recovered travelers entering from high-risk areas must also present a negative test upon entry and enter domestic quarantine for 10 days. The domestic quarantine can be ended prematurely if another negative test result is presented five days after entry.

At present, travel from a virus-variant area is not possible, as a travel ban is in force for countries where virus mutations are widespread. Entry is possible only in a few exceptional cases (for example, for German nationals and persons with residence and an existing right of abode in Germany, as well as their immediate family members). Irrespective of vaccination or convalescent status, these travelers are obliged to register their entries digitally, present negative test results upon entry, and go into quarantine for 14 days. Only vaccinated and recovered persons may shorten their quarantine periods by presenting further negative test results five days after entry.

Employer Inquiries Into Employees’ Vaccination and Recovery Status

These extensive regulations raise a question as to whether an employer may inquire into an employee’s vaccination status, or whether the employee has recovered from a COVID-19 infection in connection with an upcoming business trip.

The vaccination and/or convalescence status of an employee, under 9 (1) of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is considered health data and thus protected personal information according to Art. An employer may request and process this information only if there is a legal basis for doing so. If a business trip requires proof of an employee’s vaccination against COVID-19 (e.g., due to entry restrictions), an employer may request and process this information from the employee in individual cases. However, employers may only request the information in the context of specific business trips and are prohibited from retaining the information for any other purposes.”

The COVID-19–related entry regulations of many countries may largely determine the feasibility of a contemplated business trip, as the prospect for international business travel will likely depend on the vaccination status of the employees involved. This situation may result in a legitimate interest on the part of the employer to inquire into employee vaccination status because the employer would otherwise be unable to find out whether a particular employee met the entry requirements of the destination country. Only by inquiring into vaccination status can the employer ensure that the employee is not turned away at the border—i.e., that the employee can fulfill the duty to provide the contractually agreed upon work within the scope of the business trip.

Whether an employer’s query regarding an employee’s vaccination status is legitimate is therefore a case- and fact-specific inquiry, which depends above all on the entry regulations of the destination country. If the destination country requires complete vaccination for entry, it may be permissible from a data protection perspective to ask about an employee’s vaccination status.

Article By Cynthia Lange of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more COVID-19 and travel-related legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

U.S. House and Senate Reach Agreement on Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act

On December 14, 2021, lawmakers in the House and Senate announced that they had reached an agreement on compromise language for a bill known as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act or “UFLPA.”  Different versions of this measure passed the House and the Senate earlier this year, but lawmakers and Congressional staff have been working to reconcile the parallel proposals. The compromise language paves the way for Congress to pass the bill and send it to President Biden’s desk as soon as this week.

The bill would establish a rebuttable presumption that all goods originating from China’s Xinjiang region violate existing US law prohibiting the importation of goods made with forced labor. The rebuttable presumption would go into effect 180 days after enactment.  The compromise bill would also require federal officials to solicit public comments and hold a public hearing to aid in developing a strategy for the enforcement of the import ban vis-à-vis goods alleged to have been made through forced labor in China.

This rebuttable presumption will present significant challenges to businesses with supply chains that might touch the Xinjiang region.  Many businesses do not have full visibility into their supply chains and will need to act quickly to map their suppliers and respond to identified risks.  Importers must present detailed documentaton in order to release any shipments that they think were improperly detained, a costly and time-consuming endeavor.  Notably, the public comment and hearing processes will guide the government’s enforcement strategy, providing business stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to an enforcement process that could have implications for implementation of the import ban more broadly.

China’s Xinjiang region is a part of several critical supply chains, lead among them global cotton and apparel trade, as well as solar module production.  According to the Peterson Institute:

Xinjiang accounts for nearly 20 percent of global cotton production, with annual production greater than that of the entire United States. Its position in refined polysilicon—the material from which solar panels are built—is even more dominant, accounting for nearly half of global production. Virtually all silicon-based solar panels are likely to contain some Xinjiang-sourced silicon, according to Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. If signed into law, the bill will send apparel producers and the US solar industry scrambling to find alternative sources of supply and prices are bound to increase.

Article By Ludmilla L. Kasulke and Rory Murphy of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more legal news and legislation updates, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

9th Cir. Upholds Antitrust Jury Verdict Against Chinese Telescope Company [PODCAST]

Court affirms evidentiary rulings on market definition and overcharges. Agrees evidence supported verdict for collusion and attempted monopolization.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this month upheld judgment in favor of Optronic Technologies, Inc., finding there was sufficient evidence that Chinese telescope manufacturer, Ningbo Sunny Electronic (“Sunny”), conspired with a competitor in the U.S. consumer telescope market to allocate customers, fix prices, and monopolize the telescope market in violation of federal antitrust laws (Optronic Technologies, Inc., v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., No. 20-15837, 9th Cir. 2021). Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote the opinion.

California-based Optronic, known commercially as Orion Telescopes & Binoculars, sued Sunny in November 2014. Orion alleged Sunny violated Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 by conspiring to allocate customers in the telescope market and conspiring to fix prices or credit terms for Optronics in collusion with Suzhou Synta Optical Technology. Orion further alleged Sunny’s 2014 acquisition of independent manufacturer, Meade, violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Orion alleged that Sunny engaged in these anticompetitive acts to force Orion out and further monopolize the telescope market.

A California jury found in favor of Orion on all counts and awarded the company $16.8 million in damages, which the district court trebled to $50.4 million. The district court also ordered injunctive relief, directing Sunny to supply Orion and Synta’s Meade on non-discriminatory terms for five years, and not to communicate with Synta about competitively sensitive information.

Rulings on key elements of plaintiff’s economic evidence affirmed.

Sunny appealed on several grounds, including two that challenged key elements of the plaintiff’s expert economic evidence. The jury had found Sunny liable for attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2, which makes it unlawful for any person to monopolize or attempt or conspire to monopolize any relevant market. Sunny argued on appeal that the evidence could not support a Section 2 verdict because Orion’s economist failed to define a relevant market. In particular, Sunny claimed the expert did not examine the cross-elasticity between substitute products in the market or perform a SSNIP test, the standard analysis used to delineate the outer boundaries of a relevant market.

The appeals court found these contentions lacked merit. The plaintiff’s economist had testified that the relevant product market was the market for telescope manufacturing services. The purpose of the SSNIP test is to determine whether the relevant market is drawn too narrowly and should be expanded to include potential substitutes. But because no other manufacturing capacity can substitute for telescope manufacturing services, wholesale purchasers of telescopes cannot turn to other manufacturers to fulfill orders. Without substitutable manufacturers, a SSNIP test boils down to whether new manufacturers would enter the market fast enough to make an increase in price unprofitable for a hypothetical monopolist, which they could not. As a result, the court held that the economist reasonably could forgo performing a SSNIP analysis.

Sunny also challenged the economist’s estimate of anticompetitive overcharges that could not directly be observed. Neither the “benchmark” nor “before-and-after” estimation methods were available. Therefore, to develop a measure of damages, the plaintiff’s expert presented two different methods of estimating the overcharges. In the first method, the expert collected data on cartel overcharges from the economic literature on markets with structures and conditions similar to telescope manufacturing. The average of those overcharges was then used as an estimate of the overcharge resulting from defendants’ collusion. As a check on this estimate, the economist also submitted a theoretical Cournot equilibrium model of market prices based on assumptions drawn from the record in the case. The two methods yielded similar and consistent results. Affirming the admissibility of the expert’s damages estimates, the appellate court found the expert’s report and testimony “were sufficiently tied to the facts of this case such that the district court properly admitted this evidence.”

In rebuttal, the defendant’s economist testified to the high sensitivity of the assumptions used in the plaintiff’s theoretical model. Interestingly, defendants were not permitted to submit their own estimate of damages for the first time on rebuttal, so the defendants’ expert had to limit her testimony to the sensitivity of the model without the ability to show the jury any resulting alternative estimate of the anticompetitive overcharge. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s limitation on the defendants’ rebuttal expert.

Price fixing and a larger scheme.

Sunny also argued that Orion failed to present sufficient evidence to support Orion’s Section 1 claims. Section 1 prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. Horizontal price fixing and market allocation are per se unreasonable and support Section 1 liability without regard to any purported justification or defense. The Ninth Circuit noted that Orion offered evidence that Synta executives encouraged Sunny’s purchase of Meade, an acquisition that was part of a larger scheme by Sunny and Synta to jointly control the telescope manufacturing market, even though federal regulators had already prohibited such a combination. The court also declined to upset the jury’s finding that Sunny conspired with a Synta subsidiary to fix prices and credit terms to Orion, a per se violation of Section 1.

“If you break it, you buy it.”

Finally, it is notable that the appellate court affirmed the award of damages accruing after September 2016, when the defendant and Synta took their last steps to eliminate Meade, and Synta entered a Settlement and Supply Agreement with Orion. The court held that, even if the conspiratorial acts of Sunny and Synta ended in 2016, Orion could still recover post-2016 damages “because it continued to suffer economic harm from the harm to competition caused by the illegal concerted activity.” Thus, where collusion causes a durable change in market structure or sets the pattern of a continuing collusive practice, it is no defense that the conspirators may have ceased engaging in concerted action.

The rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Optronics is clear: “[W]here an antitrust plaintiff suffers continuing antitrust injuries from anticompetitive changes to market structure that arose from a proven antitrust violation, we hold that the violation may be a material cause of that injury, and so recovery of damages is permitted, even after the last proven date of the violative conduct. This rule accords with the common-sense principle that ‘if you break it, you buy it.’”

Welcomed clarity.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion brings welcomed clarity on several points. It demonstrated that plaintiffs need not perform a SSNIP test where market-specific circumstances define a market’s outer boundary. For claimants facing the need to estimate unobservable anticompetitive overcharges, it affirms an ingenious method for arriving at a reasonable and reliable estimate. And, for past conspiracies with continuing anticompetitive effects, the decision announces the common-sense principle that a defendant “remains liable for the continuing injuries suffered by plaintiffs from the structural harm to competition that its unlawful scheme brought about.” Put simply, this is a well-articulated decision by a capable panel that adds precision and certainty to antitrust.

Edited by Tom Hagy for MoginRubin LLP

© MoginRubin LLP

For more articles on 9th Circuit decisions, visit the NLR Litigation section.

China’s Supreme People’s Court Rules No Accounting for Profit for Joint Patent Ownership

In decision no. （2020）最高法知民终954号 dated November 25, 2021, China’s Supreme People’s Court ruled that if the co-owners of a patent or patent application right do not make an agreement on the exercise of the right and one of the co-owners independently practices the patent,  the other co-owner cannot claim the distribution of the proceeds from the separate practicing of the patent on the grounds of co-ownership of the patent right.

 

 

 

 

 

The appellant, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University 温州医科大学附属第一医院 (hereinafter referred to as Wenzhou Hospital) and the appellee Shenzhen Huilistong Information Technology Co., Ltd. 深圳市汇利斯通信息技术有限公司 (hereinafter referred to as Huilistong Company) were involved in a patent infringement litigation for CN Patent No. ZL 201210235924.0 entitled “a self-service terminal used in the lobby of a hospital.”

Wenzhou Hospital asserted that it co-owns the involved patent with Huilistong. Without its permission, Huilistong Company violated the rights of Wenzhou Hospital by practicing the patent involved in the case, and requested an order for Huilistong Company to stop the infringement and destroy inventory of infringing products and compensate Wenzhou Hospital for economic losses of 2.5098 million RMB and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 116,400 RMB.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province held that Huilistong Company could independently practice the patent involved in the case in accordance with the law, which does not constitute an infringement of the patent right of Wenzhou Hospital.

Wenzhou Hospital appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme People’s Court made a determination on the issue of “allocation of royalties,” and on September 24, 2020, it rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The Supreme People’s Court explained that Article 15 of the Patent Law stipulates that if the co-owners of the patent right have an agreement on the exercise of the right, such agreement shall prevail. If there is no agreement, the co-owners may practice the patent alone or permit others to implement the patent by way of ordinary licensing; if the patent is permitted to be practiced by others, the royalties collected shall be distributed among the co-owners.

Except for the circumstances specified in the preceding paragraph, the exercise of joint patent application rights or patent rights shall obtain the consent of all co-owners.

Therefore, without the consent of the co-owner of the patent, the co-owner of a patent may directly obtain economic benefits through the co-owned patent in two ways: first, to separately practice the co-owned patent, and second, to license others to exploit the patent in the way of ordinary license, and only in the latter circumstance may there be a requirement for distributing the profits to the co-owners, but under the circumstance of independent exploitation, there is no such requirement.

In this case, Wenzhou Hospital claimed that some of the self-service registration integrated machines involved in this case were marked with such words as the joint research and development by Huilistong Company and the hospital involved in this case. However, this does not prove that Huilistong Company licensed the hospital involved in this case to use the patent involved, and there was no evidence in this case that the hospital involved in this case paid any patent licensing fee to Huilistong Company.

Therefore, the claim of Wenzhou Hospital for sharing the economic proceeds obtained by Huilistong Company from the exploitation of the patent at issue was not valid.

Wenzhou Hospital separately claimed that, according to the provisions of the civil law on the sharing of proceeds by the co-owners with respect to the co-owned property, Wenzhou Hospital also had the right to share the economic proceeds obtained by Huillistong Company from the implementation of the patent in question.

In response, the Supreme People’s Court held that, although Article 78 (2) of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that “a co-owner enjoys the rights and assumes the obligations over the co-owned property,” this provision is a general provision on the co-owned property, and the aforesaid provision of the Patent Law falls under the special provisions on the distribution mechanism of the rights and interests of all co-owners under the circumstance of co-ownership of patents, and the special provisions of the Patent Law shall prevail.

Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court ruled for Huilistong Company.

The full text of the decision is available here (Chinese only).

© 2021 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Ontario’s Employment Laws: Several Significant Changes Coming Under Bill 27, the Working for Workers Act, 2021

On November 30, 2021, the Government of Ontario passed Bill 27, the Working for Workers Act, 2021. Bill 27 amends a number of statutes, including the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

According to the government, this legislation achieves a number of goals, including improving employees’ work-life balance, prohibiting noncompete agreements to increase competition in business and labour markets, facilitating the registration of internationally trained professionals, and implementing a licensing regime for temporary help agencies and recruiters.

Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Right to Disconnect from Work

The Working for Workers Act, 2021requires that employers with 25 or more employees at the beginning of the year implement a written “disconnect from work” policy regarding disconnecting from work during nonworking hours. Under the act, the term “disconnecting from work” is defined as “engaging in work-related communications, including emails, telephone calls, video calls or the sending or reviewing of other messages, so as to be free from the performance of work.” Once an employer prepares or amends a policy, employers will have 30 days to share copies of this policy with employees. Employers must also provide new employees this policy within 30 days of being hired.

Once the act receives Royal Assent, employers will have six months from that date to develop their written policies. Following this initial year, employers will have to prepare their policies by no later than March 1 of each year.

The regulations that will be promulgated to establish the content of the policy have not yet been published. As such, it is not yet known what specific steps employers must take to prohibit after-hours work and whether they will be restricted in terms of which employees may or may not be permitted or required to perform after-hours work, in addition to other unsettled issues.

Prohibition of Noncompete Agreements

The act prohibits employers from including noncompete clauses in any agreement they form with an employee. If this provision is violated, the noncompete agreement will be void.

There are two exceptions to this rule.

  1. Employees in an executive role are excepted from this provision. An “executive” is an employee who holds the office of a chief executive position, including that of president, chief executive officer, and chief administrative officer.
  2. There is also an exception when there has been “a sale of a business or part of a business” (which includes a lease). If the purchaser and seller enter into a noncompete agreement, and the seller becomes an employee of the purchaser immediately after the sale, this prohibition will not apply.

Once Royal Assent is received, the noncompete prohibition is deemed to come into force on October 25, 2021.

With the passing the act, Ontario has become the first province to require “disconnect from work” policies and to prohibit noncompete agreements outright.

Licensing Requirements for Temporary Help Agencies

The act specifies that temporary help agencies and recruiters must now apply for a license. Anyone wishing to engage with a temporary help agency or recruiter must ensure that they are licensed, as knowingly doing business with an unlicensed agency or recruiter is prohibited under the act.

Temporary help agencies or recruiters may be refused a license and may have their licenses revoked or suspended for a number of reasons, including:

  • using recruiters that charge fees to foreign nationals;
  • providing “false or misleading information in an application”; and
  • situation in which the director of Employment Standards has reasonable grounds to believe that “the applicant will not carry on business with honesty and integrity and in accordance with the law.”

If applicants dispute the refusal, revocation, or suspension of their licenses, they can seek a review at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009

Prohibition on the Collection of Recruitment Fees

To protect foreign nationals from predatory recruitment practices, the act prohibits employers and recruiters from knowingly using the services of recruiters that charge foreign nationals for their services.

A recruiter that charges a fee, and an employer or recruiter that violates this prohibition will be liable for repaying the fees charged to the foreign national.

These amendments will come into force on the day the Working for Workers Act, 2021 receives Royal Assent.

Amendments to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions And Compulsory Trades Act, 2006

Facilitating the Registration of Internationally Trained Professionals

To facilitate the registration of internationally trained professionals, the act specifies that Canadian experience will not be a qualification for registration in a regulated profession. Regulated professions may apply to be exempted from this rule “for the purposes of public health and safety in accordance with the regulations.” Regulated professions will also be required to develop accelerated registration processes to aid with emergency preparedness.

The fairness commissioner will also evaluate language proficiency requirements to ensure that any French or English testing does not contravene the regulations.

These amendments will come into force on the day the act receives Royal Assent.

Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Mandating Washroom Access for Delivery Persons

Under the act, a new requirement is created that if a person requests washroom access in the course of delivering or picking up a package from a business. Business covered by the act must allow use of their washrooms.

Businesses will be exempt from this requirement if:

  • Sharing the washroom is unreasonable or impractical because of health and safety reasons;
  • The context makes sharing the washroom unreasonable or impractical; or
  • The delivery person would have to enter a dwelling to use the washroom.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997

Distribution of Surplus Insurance Fund

The act includes a provision that specifies that if there is a surplus in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board’s insurance fund, this surplus may be distributed among eligible employers. The insurance board will have discretion to determine the timing and the amounts to be granted to eligible employers, based on factors such as adherence to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Based on these factors, the insurance board will also be empowered to exclude any eligible employers from the distribution of surplus funds. Employers will not be able to appeal the funding decisions made by the insurance board in this respect.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act

Increasing Information Gathering in Relation to “agriculture, food or rural affairs”

Under the act, the minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is granted the authority to “collect information, including personal information, directly or indirectly” related to “agriculture, food or rural affairs” for the purposes of emergency response and public health. Personal information will not be collected, used, or disclosed in cases where other sources of information are available to fulfil the same purpose.

These amendments will come into force on the day the act receives Royal Assent.

Next Steps

Bill 27 passed its third reading on November 30, 2021. At the time of publication of this article, the legislation has not received Royal Assent, but it likely will shortly. Once Royal Assent is received, some amendments come into force immediately, while others follow different timelines. Employers may want to begin reviewing the new legislation, noting any important dates and features relevant to their organizations. In addition, employers may want to review their policies, practices, and contracts to ensure compliance.

Article By Michael Comartin and Gloria Ilunga of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Omicron COVID-19 Variant Prompts US To Suspend Travel From Eight African Countries

The Republic of South Africa informed the World Health Organization (WHO) of a new B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of SARS-CoV-2, in late November. That notice led the Biden Administration to announce the suspension of travel and restricted entry into the United States, which went into effect on Nov. 29, 2021.

At the moment, these travel restrictions appear to apply to individuals who were physically present – during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States – within the Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Eswatini, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of Malawi, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Namibia, the Republic of South Africa, and the Republic of Zimbabwe.

These travel restrictions do not apply to the following:

  • U.S. citizens and their spouses
  • Lawful permanent residents and their spouses
  • U.S. military personnel, their spouses and children
  • Parents or guardians of unmarried U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and U.S. military personnel under the age of twenty-one
  • Siblings of U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and U.S. military personnel under the age of 21, all of whom must be unmarried and under 21 years of age

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided clarification for international travelers, regardless of their vaccination status:

  • For fully vaccinated individuals, a viral test must be conducted no more than three days (72 hours) before the flight’s departure from the designated foreign country along with proof of being fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Individuals should bear in mind that the testing period may be reduced to 24 or 48 hours before boarding and should check with their respective airlines prior to departure.
  • For individuals who are not fully vaccinated, a viral test must be conducted no more than one day (24 hours) before the flight’s departure from the designated foreign country. A quarantine requirement is also under consideration.

Consideration should be taken for limiting international travel at present, since circumstances and requirements are changing rapidly.

This article was written by Tejas Shah, Sarah J. Hawk, Michael E. Durham, M. Mercedes Badida-Tavas and Mandira Sethi of Barnes and Thornburg law firm. For more information regarding COVID travel bans, please click here.

Just When I Thought I Was Out: Omicron Variant and the Return of Regional COVID-19 Travel Bans

Following its November 8, 2021 move to remove and replace all regional COVID-19 Travel bans with a blanket vaccination requirement, the Biden administration announced a new COVID-19 travel ban on those seeking to enter the U.S. from various African nations.  The new Proclamation bars most non-U.S. citizens who have been physically present in the following countries during the 14-day period prior to attempting to enter the United States:

  • Republic of Botswana

  • The Kingdom of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland)

  • The Kingdom of Lesotho

  • The Republic of Malawi

  • The Republic of Mozambique

  • The Republic of Namibia

  • The Republic of South Africa

  • The Republic of Zimbabwe

Who is covered?

The Proclamation includes several important qualifiers and exemptions. It only applies to “noncitizens” of the United States, but it includes both immigrants (those coming to stay indefinitely) and nonimmigrants (those coming temporarily).

The Proclamation bars entry for noncitizens who have been physically present in the listed countries during the 14 days prior to attempting to enter the U.S., not because of their citizenship. In other words, a South African coming to the U.S. directly from South Africa is barred, but a South African coming directly to the U.S. after 14+ days in Australia is free to enter. Importantly, the Proclamation applies in addition to the blanket vaccination requirement, so anyone seeking an exemption from the new Proclamation must also either be properly vaccinated or qualify under the extremely limited exceptions to the Vaccination requirement.

The new Proclamation does not apply to the following classes:

  • Lawful permanent residents (aka green card holders). The Proclamation does apply to immigrants, meaning it would bar those seeking to enter on immigrant visas to become lawful permanent residents.

  • The spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

  • The parent or legal guardian of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, as long as the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident is unmarried and under 21.

  • The sibling of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident as long as both are unmarried and under 21.

  • Noncitizen nationals of the United States.

  • The children, foster children, or wards of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and certain prospective adoptees.

  • Those invited by the U.S. government to fight the Corona virus.

  • Those traveling on certain crewman and transit nonimmigrant visas.

  • Nonimmigrants in most diplomatic statuses.

  • U.S. Armed Forces members and their spouses and children.

  • Those whose entry would not pose a “significant risk” of spreading the virus as determined by HHS and CDC.

  • Those whose entry would “further important law enforcement objectives” as determined by named agencies.

  • Those whose entry would be in the U.S. national interest, as determined by named agencies. National interest exception (NIE) procedures are still unclear and should be addressed in the near future, including whether prior NIE approvals will be honored.

In addition, the new Proclamation should not affect any applicant for asylum and other related humanitarian relief such as Withholding of Removal or protections under the Convention Against Torture.

How Long Will it Last and are More Travel Bans Coming?

The Proclamation’s ban began on November 29, 2021 and will remain until terminated by the President. On-the-ground case numbers in each country will determine the White House’s willingness to lift travel restrictions, but an increase in numbers in other countries could see an expansion and return to regional travel bans.

The duration of the new Proclamation and its potential expansion to other countries will likely depend on the effectiveness of vaccines against the Omicron variant and any new variants that arise in the coming months. If existing or newly created vaccines are able to combat new variants, the White House will likely rely on its blanket vaccination requirement and not fall back to the Trump-era country-specific regional bans.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more COVID-19 travel updates, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.