Category: Litigation

Behavior Modification: Trial Lawyer's Edition

Posted in the National Law Review on September 22, 2011 an article regarding a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se by Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP:

 

Just about the time you think there is nothing new under the sun or nothing interesting to blog about, the legal profession continues to astound and amaze.

More specifically, trial lawyers will never let you down.

On Monday I was trolling my usual blog buffet and I saw this item on the ABA Blogabout a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se, in his own criminal trial.

You know the old saying, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But this guy took it to a whole new level. He was essentially appearing in court with the human equivalent of a canine shock collar:

Four U.S. marshals will be in the courtroom as attorney Paul Bergrin goes on trial in federal court in Newark, N.J., next month in a racketeering case in which he is accused of operating his law firm as a criminal enterprise and conspiring with another New Jersey lawyer to murder government witnesses.

But that’s not not enough security, court officials apparently have decided. Bergrin, who is defending himself pro se, will also wear a hidden ankle bracelet. If he moves too far from his assigned area of the courtroom and violates rules against approaching the bench or the jury, he could get a jolting electric shock from the marshals, via the bracelet, . . . .

A jolting, electric shock for trial counsel who neglects to seek permission before approaching the bench?

Now this could come in handy. Really, really handy . . . .

Of course, my first thought was that the Supreme Court of Texas might find such a device useful for all of those trial lawyers who handle their own appeals when they are prone to wander from the podium in order to re-deliver their closing argument:

  • But do you give the button to Chief Justice Jefferson? He might be too restrained, nice guy that he is.
  • One button to each member of court? That could be dangerous, especially if all nine are fighting to get their questions answered. That gives new meaning to the words “hot bench.”
  • Maybe just give “the button” to Justice Hecht as the senior justice empowered to act on behalf of the court?

I’m probably just a bad and vindictive person, but I began to daydream about all the other habits of trial lawyers that such a device might plausibly correct. The list began to expand rapidly with everything from pet peeves that make my head explode to matters of real substance.

But before I publish my own list, I want to hear from you:

  • What are the things that other lawyers do that drive you crazy or make it harder to successfully do your job in representing the client?
  • What behaviors would you change if you could?
  • And in particular, what do lawyers do, often without thinking, for which you might give them a zap?
  • And what about you judges out there? Be anonymous if you need to, but what lawyer conduct do wish was Taze-worthy?

Use the comments. Weigh in. Speak out.

Or else.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP

Broker Malpractice Claim Does Not Require Expert Testimony Proving Reasonableness of Underlying Settlement

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Dana Ferestien of Williams Kastner  regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

 

On September 12, 2011, United States District Judge Lonny Suko ruled in Colman Coil Manufacturing, Inc. v. Seabury & Smith, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102238, that expert testimony regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

The insured manufacturer had been sued for damages caused by an ammonia link in their equipment. Their liability insurer, Wausau, provided a reservation of rights defense, but filed a separate coverage action seeking a declaration that the policy’s total pollution exclusion eliminated coverage. Based upon advice from both their personal coverage counsel and appointed defense counsel, the insured elected to settle the products liability lawsuit for $1.15 million, with the insured paying $450,000 of the settlement. The insured then sued its broker, Seabury & Smith, alleging that their negligence had resulted in incomplete insurance.

Seabury & Smith argued on summary judgment that the professional malpractice claim failed, as a matter of law, because the insured did not have any expert to establish the reasonableness of the underlying settlement. Judge Sukorejected the argument, noting that there is no Washington authority imposing any expert testimony requirement. Judge Suko distinguished this scenario from cases in which there has been a consent judgment to settle the underlying liability claim. The Court concluded that it is for the finder of fact to weigh whether the insured acted reasonably in settling the underlying claim.

© 2002-2011 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

NLRB Permits Micro-Units In Specialty Healthcare Decision

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Mark A. Carter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding NLRB’s controversial decision to overturn 20 years of precedent:

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has overturned 20 years of precedent and will now permit unions to organize a minority share of an employer’s workforce. As a result of this decision, organized labor will be able to establish footholds in businesses where the majority of the employees may not desire to be represented by a union. 

On August 26, 2011 the NLRB released its decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). In Specialty Healthcare, the United Steelworkers petitioned for a representational election in a bargaining unit that was very distinct from the typical “wall to wall” unit. For decades, the NLRB has concluded that where employees share a “community of interest” that the appropriate bargaining unit in a representational election should include all of the employees of the employer who are similarly situated. Typically this type of unit is called a “wall to wall” bargaining unit and its common description includes all “production and maintenance” workers employed by the employer excluding clerical, administrative and security employees. This scope of employees insured that the union would be elected where the majority of the employer’s employees desired to be represented by a union, but that where a majority of the employees did not desire to be represented, their terms and conditions of employment, and their workplace, would not be impacted by the presence of a labor union. Moreover, the “wall to wall” unit insured that there was not a fracturing of the employer’s workforce where several unions represented several small groups of employees making the collective bargaining unmanageable for any of the parties.

This logical and longstanding policy of Democratic and Republican majority labor boards has been scuttled.

In Specialty Healthcare, the employer operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Mobile, Alabama. Among the job classifications – or job titles – at this facility is a “CNA”, or, certified nursing assistant. Rather than seeking to represent all of the employer’s employees, the union petitioned for a bargaining unit consisting only of the CNAs. The employer objected on the basis of the NLRB’s decision in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991) and the Board’s longstanding practice of not certifying “fractured” units but insisting that all of the employer’s employees who shared a community of interest comprised an appropriate bargaining unit. The NLRB, through a regional director, initially concluded that this petition was appropriate and directed an election be held amongst only the employer’s full and part time CNAs. The employer appealed this decision, in essence, by asking the NLRB to review the regional director’s decision. The NLRB not only accepted this obligation but requested briefs from interested parties regarding whether its decision inPark Manor and its longstanding practice of certifying only bargaining units of all of the employees with a community of interest should remain the law. Significantly, the NLRB also requested interested parties’ positions regarding whether its decision should have application in all industries rather than just the health care industry which maintains unique standards under the National Labor Relations Act.

After inviting and, presumably, considering this argument, the NLRB reversed the Park Manor decision and will now permit appropriate units to be petitioned-for and certified even when larger and “more appropriate” bargaining units exist in the employer’s workforce.

“Nor is a unit inappropriate simply because it is small. The fact that a proposed unit is small is not alone a relevant consideration, much less a sufficient ground for finding a unit in which employees share a community of interest nevertheless inappropriate.”

To that end, the NLRB wrote that it will focus on the community of interest of the employees, the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, geographic considerations “etc., any of which may justify the finding of a small unit.” An employer can challenge the determination regarding the composition of the unit, but the Board will now require that the burden to establish that a bargaining unit is not appropriate will be an “overwhelming” community of interest between the employees in the petitioned-for unit and the larger workforce.

“…when employees or a labor organization petition for an election in a unit of employees who are readily identifiable as a group (based on job classifications, departments, functions, work locations, skills, or other similar factors) and the Board finds that the employees in the group share a community of interest after considering the traditional criteria, the Board will find the petitioned-for unit to be an appropriate unit, despite a contention that employees in the unit could be placed in a larger unit which would also be appropriate or even more appropriate, unless the party so contending demonstrates that employees in the larger unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned-for unit…”

The NLRB did agree that cases may exist where the petitioned-for unit inappropriately “fractured” the workforce. For example, had the union petitioned only for CNAs working the night shift vs. all employees, or only CNAs working on the first floor and not the second floor, but it is eminently clear that the Board will direct elections and certify bargaining units of employees simply because they have one job title or job function and permit the union to ignore the other employees with distinct job titles or functions even when that means that the minority of the employees overall support the union. The reality is that all of the employees will have to deal with the union.

Employers should take no stock in some press suggestions that this decision has limited application to the health care industry. There is no holding or assurance that the rule is limited to the health care industry merely because the case arose within the health care industry. Rather, employers will be well served to heed the opening of Member Brian Hayes dissent which is absolutely accurate:

“Make no mistake. Today’s decision fundamentally changes the standard for determining whether a petitioned-for unit is appropriate in any industry subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.”

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Fan Death Re-Emphasizes MLB Ballpark Safety

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding risk, death and baseball…

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that have unfortunately converged to become a grave concern for Major League Baseball this season. One fan recently died in Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Texas, while reaching over a railing for a ball. Last summer, another fan fell 30 feet and fractured his skull.

Rangers Ballpark, the site of a recent fan death that has caused all MLB teams to re-evaluate fan safety.

Risk, death and baseball: three exciting topics that This, combined with some other high-profile incidents at ballparks in recent years, has led all teams to reconsider the height of their safety railings and ponder other potential solutions to keep spectators safe.

Yesterday, ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program featured a great investigative report into the matter. You can watch Texas Rangers owner/legend Nolan Ryan discuss the controversy here. And below is the opening paragraphs of their written story.

Ronnie Hargis remembers his right hand brushing Shannon Stone’s shorts as he tried to grab the 6-foot-3-inch firefighter who went over a front-row railing in Section 5 of Rangers Ballpark in Arlington.

But Hargis missed. Stone’s 6-year-old son Cooper, who had been standing next to Hargis, saw his dad fall 20 feet to the concrete below. Stone, 39, died about an hour later.

Even though Hargis struggles to come to terms with the events of July 7, he does not believe that the 33-inch railing that Stone fell over was too low. He joins a cadre of fans who disagree with the Rangers’ decision to raise all front-row railings to 42 inches in response to Stone’s fall and two other falls before it.

As officials with other Major League Baseball ballparks say they’re currently reviewing their railings, baseball fans are divided on whether to raise the railings, keep them where they are, or implement alternative safety measures, such as nets.

It isn’t just the Worldwide Leader who is interested in how teams are keeping fans safe, however.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2011 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Shooting Canons out of your Cannon

Recently published in the National Law Review an article by Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP regarding press coverage of the case after giving media interviews and posting comments on Facebook

Hat tip to the ABA Blog for another tale of woe about attorneys who worsened their fate with bad spelling.

A New York judge was concerned that defense counsel lacked the necessary “game” to handle the high profile murder case before the court.

Among the reasons? Facebook comments and bad spelling. According to the ABA Blog:

Firetog scolded the lawyers for complaining about press coverage of the case after giving media interviews and posting comments on Facebook. He even chastised the lawyers for misspelling “canon” in a reference to ethics, the Times says. “Two N’s means a cannon that shoots at something,” he said.

So remember, campers, an ethical canon is what attorneys must obey. An ethical cannon is an artillery piece that obeys the rules of engagement.

The career you save could be your own.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP

Italian Competition Authority Finds Abusive Conduct in Withholding Data and Internal Communications Praising Company Strategy

Posted on August 25th in the National Law Review an article by Veronica Pinotti and Martino Sforza of McDermott Will & Emery which highlights the dangers faced by a dominant market player that owns intellectual property rights or data that are essential for other companies to compete. 

On 5 July 2011, the Italian Competition Authority imposed fines of €5.1 million on a multinational crop protection company for having abused its dominant position on the market for fosetyl-based systemic fungicides in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  In addition, the Authority issued an injunction restraining the company from such conduct in the future.

The Authority considered that the multinational was able to increase its prices for finished products on the downstream market while increasing the volume of its own sales, showing a high degree of pricing policy independence.

In making its decision, the Authority also took into account the fact that, in addition to its high market share, the multinational was the only vertically integrated manufacturer with significant financial capability and it owned certain research data required for the commercialisation of fosetyl-based products.  According to the Authority, these data are vital for accessing the market, given that they are indispensable for competitors seeking to renew marketing authorisations, because the current legislation restricts the repetition of tests on vertebrate animals.  The Authority noted that certain competitors that had joined a task force for the purpose of negotiating access to the multinational’s data were disqualified from renewal of their marketing authorisations and had to leave the market.  Refusal by the multinational to grant access to the data was therefore found to be abusive.

The Authority reviewed a number of the multinational’s internal communications that praised the results obtained in the fosetyl-based business in Italy, thanks to the strategy adopted by the company.  According to the Authority, these communications proved that the company was aware of the anti-competitive character of their conduct.

In the Authority’s view, the company’s conduct constituted a serious infringement and therefore deserved a very high fine.

Comment

The case highlights the dangers faced by a dominant market player that owns intellectual property rights or data that are essential for other companies to compete.  The case also illustrates the importance of the language used by businesses in their internal communications, given that internal communications are often used by the Authority when reaching a decision on potential infringements. Refusals to licence or grant access to market-essential data can only be made if there are objective grounds for doing so.  This is a difficult issue on which dominant companies should seek legal advice.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Asbestos Litigation Case Questions Safety in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review on  an article by C. James Zeszutek and David J. Singley of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding an unsual case  in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred:

Although most would consider asbestos to be an old problem, limited to mainly the manufacturing and construction industries, asbestos has been incorporated into a myriad of products that had many and varied uses. Because asbestos was so pervasive, claims such as the one described below, occurring many years after the last occasions on which asbestos was used and arising from the use of sophisticated equipment in a laboratory, are still prevalent.

Dinsmore attorneys recently handled a premises liability case for a major minerals supply company. The case was unusual in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred into the 1990’s. This is in contrast to the typical asbestos case that usually involves exposure in heavy industry prior to 1980.

The plaintiff in this case initially worked as a technician for a manufacturer of laboratory instruments including thermoanalyzers. A thermoanalyzer is an instrument that allows the user to determine the amount of water in the sample being tested as well as certain other characteristics of the sample as the result of heating the sample to high temperatures. The thermoanalyzer at our client’s premises contained an asbestos paper separator between the “hot” portion of the instrument and the unheated side. The plaintiff testified that whenever he installed or performed service work on the thermoanalyzers, including the one at our client’s laboratory, he was exposed to friable asbestos from the paper separator as well as component insulation on vapor lines contained in the thermoanalyser. The plaintiff also contended that he was exposed to friable asbestos from an asbestos glove and asbestos pad that were provided with the thermoanalyzer. The plaintiff ultimately left his employment with the thermoanalyzer’s manufacturer and started his own business doing the same type of work, namely servicing various laboratory instruments, including thermoanalyzers. Significantly, the plaintiff alleged exposures at our client’s premises into the 1990’s. The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer which is uniformly fatal and is, except in rare circumstances, a signature disease for asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff’s theory of liability as to our client was that because the thermoanlayzer in our client’s laboratory had asbestos in it, and further because the client had not provided a warning to the plaintiff regarding asbestos in the thermoanalyzers, that our client had breached its obligation to provide a safe workplace for tradesmen at its premises. As is typical in asbestos cases, it was not initially clear what theory of liability the plaintiff was pursuing. It was not until the plaintiff was deposed and additional discovery undertaken that it became apparent that the plaintiff was focusing on the alleged failure to provide a safe work place because of the asbestos containing components in the thermoanalyzer. The case was further complicated because it was filed in New Jersey, where the plaintiff lived, but our client’s premises were located in Pennsylvania. Thus, there was a question as to whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law would apply. We argued that regardless of which state’s law was applied, as the premises owner, our client did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, an independent contractor, who was allegedly injured by the very piece of equipment on which he was hired to work.

The Plaintiff argued that the Olivo v. Owens – Illinois case, a New Jersey Supreme Court Case, required a premises owner to provide a reasonably safe place to work for tradesmen coming on to the owner’s premises, including an obligation to inspect for defective or dangerous conditions. The Olivo case was one in a series of cases in which the New Jersey courts were attempting to address premises liability in terms of a reasonableness standard as opposed to the traditional categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee, all of which deal with the person’s status while on the premises. In Olivo, the New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment. The New Jersey appellate court reversed and held there were issues of fact regarding the degree of control the premises owner retained over the work, what safety information the premises owner provided, and what the premises owner told the contractor regarding the presence of asbestos on the premises. The Plaintiff argued that these were exactly the same issues in our case.

Dinsmore argued that Pennsylvania law applied (because the premises in question was in Pennsylvania) and in any event, Pennsylvania law was similar to that of New Jersey, namely, that a premises owner does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor for dangers inherent in the work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Although the court did not overtly address the choice of law issue, it held that our client, the premises owner, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because the plaintiff was responsible for his safety on the equipment on which he was working. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court focused on the premises owner’s lack of any supervision or control over the worked performed by the independent contractor. We also emphasized the independent contractor’s superior knowledge regarding the thermoanalyzer and its components.

Our Advice 

Facilities and equipment managers need to be alert that in facilities built or remodeled prior to the mid-1970’s, or equipment, even laboratory equipment, assembled prior to 1980 and where there was a need for thermal insulation, asbestos may still be present and care should be used in dealing with such equipment. Additionally, although waivers of liability, obtained from the tradesmen coming on the property may provide some legal protection, the facilities and equipment managers should make clear with the tradesmen, or the tradesmen’s employers, that they are being hired for their expertise and knowledge regarding the proposed work and that they are being relied upon to perform the work in a safe manner.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

 

NYC Condo Refinance Collapses Because There Was No "Meeting of the Minds"

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Eric S. O’Connor of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP wherein  plaintiffs sought damages arising out of their attempt to refinance a mortgage loan with the defendant bank:

In Trief v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Index No. 105280/09, — N.Y.S.2d — (Sup Ct, NY County, Apr. 4, 2011) (“Trief”), the plaintiffs sought damages arising out of their attempt to refinance a mortgage loan with the defendant bank (the “Bank”), for breach of contract and violation of New York’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. General Business Law (“NYGBL”) § 349. Justice Charles Edward Ramos granted the Bank’s motion for summary judgment on both counts. The parties actually proceeded to closing when plaintiff walked away from the refinancing of a luxury midtown condominium located at 15 West 53rd Street, New York, NY – seemingly over a $518.75 dispute.

The main lesson is that all parties, especially when communicating via more informal modes of communications like email, must clarify and confirm an “agreement on all essential terms” or else a valid contract will not be formed.

The facts – negotiation, informal communications, the exchange of standard loan forms, etc… – follow a seemingly common pattern. A mortgage consultant from the Bank filled out the refinance application on the Triefs’ behalf by telephone and then sent an e-mail attaching a Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges (the “GFE”). The GFE proposed a 5.125% interest rate and a standard provision indicating that the “fees listed are estimated – the actual charges may be more or less.” The cover email asked to “let me know if you would like me to lock you in for 60 days”, which Mr. Trief responded “sure.” After a small dispute about the rate, the Bank faxed a Conventional Commitment Letter (the “Letter”) to the Triefs confirming the rate and other details. Despite language in the Letter that “You must sign and return this commitment letter within that period to ensure receiving the terms specified”, neither party signed the Letter. At the scheduled closing, the Triefs refused to proceed because the Bank sought to charge them a rate lock extension fee of $518.75, which the Triefs claim was never negotiated or agreed to.

The main issue was whether a contract was formed. The Court explained the classic rules that a plaintiff must establish an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound. Kowalchuk v. Stroup, 61 A.D.3d 118, 121 (1st Dept 2009).  Mutual assent means a “meeting of the minds” and must include agreement on all essential terms. Id. The Court held that there was not a meeting of the minds on all of the essential terms of a final contract for refinancing. The two key pieces of evidence – the email from the Bank asking to “let me know if you would like me to lock you in for 60 days” and the standard GFE language that terms were subject to change – were only seeking an acceptance to lock in the rate for a fixed period of time, rather than a final agreement to refinance. Further, the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act(“RESPA”) shows that the legislature did not intend for the GFE to bind a lender to a final loan agreement. See 24 CFR § 3500.7 [a], [g] (the “GFE is not a loan commitment. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a loan originator to make a loan to a particular borrower.”).

Finally, the Court also rejected the Triefs claim under NYGBL § 349. A claim for violation of GBL § 349 is based upon consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading, causing a plaintiff injury. The Court held that the Triefs failed to even identify consumer-oriented conduct on the part of the Bank because private contract disputes, unique to the parties, generally do not fall within the scope of the statute. The Triefs failed to demonstrate injury because they refused to close on the loan refinancing and did not pay any fees to the Bank.
Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitting Non-Practicin Entities Where It Hurts

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Robert A. Gutkin and Jeff C. Dodd of Andrews Kurth LLP about the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements. 

 

 

The Federal Circuit Affirms an Award of Substantial Sanctions Against a NPE with a Business Model of Bringing Litigation To Extract Quick Settlements

 

Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, No. 2009 – 1308 (Fed. Cir., July 29, 2011) (Judges Lourie, Mayer and O’Malley)

 

In a July 29 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of substantial sanctions against a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that had a business model of suing numerous companies for nuisance value settlements. As the Court succinctly stated:

 

The record supports the district court’s finding that Eon-Net acted in bad faith by exploiting the high cost to defend complex litigation to extract a nuisance value settlement from Flagstar. At the time that the district court made its exceptional case finding, Eon-Net and its related entities, Millennium and Glory, had filed over 100 lawsuits against a number of diverse defendants alleging infringement of one or more patents from the Patent Portfolio. Each complaint was followed by a “demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost of litigation, a demand to which most defendants apparently have agreed.” Slip Op at 22.

 

We think that this is a potentially important holding because the Federal Circuit approved an exceptional case for enhanced sanctions based on the business model adopted by some NPE’s—suit followed by quick settlement at lower-than-litigation cost. As we discuss below, the Eon-Net LP case represents the latest in a string of judicial opinions providing defendants with additional ammunition against NPE’s pursuing “objectively baseless” litigation. However, the threat of sanctions may also lead NPE’s to be more difficult in their settlement demands and willingness to offer quick and early settlements.

 

Background

 

The case at issue involved three document processing systems patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,683,697 (“the ‘697 Patent”), 7,075,673 (“the ‘673 Patent”), and 7,184,162 (“the ‘162 Patent”) (collectively “the Patents”) owned by Eon-Net LP, a patent holding company formed to enforce various patents. The Patents are part of a larger patent family (“the Patent Portfolio”) originating with a parent patent application filed in 1991. Between 1996 and 2001, Millennium L.P., an Eon-Net related company, filed four lawsuits asserting various claims of the Patent Portfolio. After 2001, Eon-Net hired new outside litigation counsel, and the number of patent cases filed on behalf of Eon-Net and its related entities skyrocketed. By the time the district court in the present matter had issued sanctions against Eon-Net, more than 100 lawsuits had been filed, almost all of which resulted in early settlements or dismissals.

 

Eon-Net sued Flagstar Bancorp in 2005, alleging infringement of the ‘697 patent. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Flagstar, finding that Eon-Net failed to adequately investigate its claims prior to filing suit, and finding that the claims were baseless. The district court also assessed Rule 11 sanctions in the amount of $141,984.70 against Eon-Net and its attorney.

 

After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded both the summary judgment and Rule 11 decisions in 2007, Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 249 F. App’x 189 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Eon-Net pursued the case (even adding new claims for infringement). But after receiving an unfavorable Markman decision on claim construction, Eon-Net stipulated to noninfringement. The district court subsequently granted Flagstar’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. §285, finding that Eon-Net pursued baseless claims; the lawsuit was brought for the improper purpose of seeking a nuisance value settlement; Eon-Net destroyed evidence; and, Eon-Net’s litigation tactics were improper. Upon invitation from the district court, Flagstar renewed its prior Rule 11 motion. The district court reinstated in full the $141,984.70 in attorneys fees and costs against Eon-Net and its attorney for violation of Rule 11. The district court also found the case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and awarded Flagstar $489,150.48 in attorneys fees and costs after Eon-Net continued to litigate the case after remand.

 

The Federal Circuit Decision

 

The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s claim construction, and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement to which Eon-Net had stipulated.

 

In reviewing the district court’s finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285, the Federal Circuit stated:

 

Indeed, “[l]itigation misconduct and unprofessional behavior may suffice, by themselves, to make a case exceptional under § 285.” Absent litigation misconduct or misconduct in securing the patent, sanctions under § 285 may be imposed against the patentee only if both (1) the patentee brought the litigation in bad faith; and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless (citations omitted). Slip Op at 17.

 

Eon-Net failed to show that the district court’s findings regarding the accused litigation misconduct were clearly erroneous. Eon-Net also failed to overcome the finding that its infringement allegations could only be supported by baseless claim construction positions.

 

Certainly Eon-Net’s behavior during the course of the litigation was egregious, as the court described in detail.1 But that alone would not have warranted our Client Alert, for the behavior giving rise to sanctions in any given case is based on the particular facts of the case. What caught our eye was the Federal Circuit’s condemnation of the business model of filing litigation to obtain a quick return through settlement:

 

Eon-Net’s case against Flagstar had “indicia of extortion” because it was part of Eon-Net’s history of filing nearly identical patent infringement complaints against a plethora of diverse defendants, where Eon-Net followed each filing with a demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost to defend the litigation. Slip Op at 22.

Meritless cases like this one unnecessarily require the district court to engage in excessive claim construction analysis before it is able to see the lack of merit of the patentee’s infringement allegations…. Thus, those low settlement offers—less than ten percent of the cost that Flagstar expended to defend suit—effectively ensured that Eon-Net’s baseless infringement allegations remained unexposed, allowing Eon-Net to continue to collect additional nuisance value settlements. Slip Op at 23.

 

The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285, and was disturbed by the ability of an NPE, such as Eon-Net, to impose high costs on a company to defend against meritless claims, while at the same time the NPE faces little downside risk other than the loss of future licensing revenue.2

 

Potential Implications of Eon-Net LP

 

We stress that the Federal Circuit did not uphold sanctions merely because a NPE sought to enforce its patent rights. Rather, the Federal Circuit was clearly bothered by the ability of an NPE to exploit the “system” to extort nuisance value settlements while facing little downside risk.

 

Indeed, some NPE’s count on defendants to settle based on the inescapable fact that defense of even a suit on a bad patent is expensive. That cost is built into the architecture of patent litigation. As our colleague David Griffith chronicled in“Patents by the Numbers” in Andrews Kurth’s IP and Technology Developmentsthe median cost of defense in 2009 (as reported by AILPA) was $650,000 if less than one million was at risk, $2.5 million if $1 million to 25 million at risk – $2,500,000. In addition, the median time for an infringement case to get to trial was 2.5 years (2009 data from a report by PwC). While the rate of success was 38% in the 15 most active patent dockets (1995-2009) as reported by PwC (31% for NPE’s) if the patentee survives summary judgment motions and gets to a jury, its odds improve to a 75% win rate (according to the University of Houston Law Center’s patstats). Given these statistics, the temptation for any operating company faced with a lawsuit is to settle and move on with its business if the NPE’s offer of settlement is far less than the cost of defense. NPE’s count on that temptation.

 

The Federal Circuit stopped short of stating that business models like that of Eon-Net provide the sole basis for finding an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285. However, the language of the decision does suggest that the business model may per se satisfy the “bad faith” element of the two part requirement for finding an exceptional case. This decision seems to be an attempt by the Court to try to level the playing field for patent litigation by increasing the downside risk for a NPE. Moreover, this case follows a string of other cases, including eBay (which held that irreparable harm would not be presumed in a preliminary injunction action even if infringement had been found) and MedImmune (which allows declaratory judgment actions to be brought under less stringent standards than the Federal Circuit had historically applied).

 

Just as importantly, we are seeing many other trends and techniques that defendants are starting to use to combat vexatious NPE litigation. Some defendants are finding success in obtaining venue transfers from courts thought to be more favorable to NPE litigation; others are using declaratory judgment actions; yet others are pursuing early summary judgments (by some accounts approximately 60% of patent cases are decided on summary judgment and patentee success at the summary judgment stage is only 12%).

 

Our firm also has had success strategically employing the re-examination to narrow or even eliminate patent claims from weak (or worse patents). Our success is consistent with some compelling statistics. Again our colleague David Griffith reported that the chances that PTO will grant an ex parte/inter partes reexamination application are greater than 90% (based on USPTO statistics as of March 2011). According to an AILPA 2009 report, the median cost of an ex parte reexamination was $10,000; for an inter-partes proceeding the median was $188,000. Moreover, according to USPTO statistics as of March 2011, in most cases claims were cancelled or modified:

 

ex parte reexamination (third party requested re-exam)

inter partes reexamination

All claims confirmed: 24%

All claims confirmed: 12%

All claims cancelled: 13%

All claims cancelled: 45%

Claims modified: 63%

Claims modified: 43%

 

The bottom line: defendants in NPE litigation should consider in the calculus of settlement not only litigation cost but also the trends and techniques favoring defendants over NPE’s, especially now that Eon-Net LP may encourage courts to shift the expenses of defense that NPE’s count on encouraging quick settlement—at least in the most abusive cases.

 

 

1. The court provided an extensive litany of Eon-Net’s sanctionable behavior throughout the course of the litigation, including: destroying relevant documents prior to the initiation of the lawsuit; flaunting the fact that as a patent enforcement company they did not believe they needed to have a document retention policy; refusing to participate in the claim construction process; lodging incomplete and misleading evidence with the court; submitting declarations contradicting deposition testimony; and, evidencing a general disdain and disrespect for the court process including statements made at a deposition by a party witnesses complaining that his deposition was “an inconvenience and a bother” and that he was “so sick of this stuff by now. I am so sick of this stuff, especially this haggling over stupidities and trivialities which is the name of the game in litigation.” Slip Op at 20.

 

2. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Rule 11 sanctions, even though it was undisputed that Eon-Net’s counsel did examine portions of Flagstar’s website and reach a conclusion that it worked in a manner that infringed the ‘697 patent. “A reasonable pre-suit investigation, however, also requires counsel to perform an objective evaluation of the claim terms when reading those terms on the accused device.” Slip Op at 26. It was not clearly erroneous for the district court to conclude that Eon-Net’s claim construction position “borders on the illogical” and that “[t]he specification exposes the frivolity of Eon-Net’s claim construction position.” Id.

© 2011 Andrews Kurth LLP Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fda-issues-draft-guidance-510k-device-modifications-new-emphasis-potential-impact-modificati

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by  Sylvie A. Durham, Genna Garver and Dmitry G. Ivanov of Greenberg Traurig, LLP about a dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law  indenture 

The U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit brought by noteholders under a New York law indenture against the co-issuer of the notes and collateral manager for breach of contract because the noteholders failed to comply with the “limitation of suits” provision in the indenture.

The court stated that the allegation of the noteholders that they did not receive proper distribution amounts on the notes constituted an “event of default” under the indenture, and as such “falls squarely within the limitation on suits clause.” However, since the noteholders did not comply with all the contractual prerequisites for bringing a lawsuit set forth in the “limitation of suits” provision of the indenture, the court did not allow them to proceed with breach of contract claims against the co-issuer and collateral manager. However, the court did not dismiss the breach of contract claims against the indenture trustee based on the same “no-action” clause, since compliance with such clause “would require [noteholders] to demand that the [indenture trustee] initiate proceedings against itself to rectify the alleged error.”

A copy of the case can be accessed here.

 ©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.