Category: Uncategorized

Are they Worth Price of Paper They’re Printed On? – Ubersization of Arbitration Clauses

Arbitration has long been treated as an inferior method of resolving disputes, despite pronouncements to the contrary from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, arbitration does serve a purpose. The process is less formalized, so it moves much faster than the court system. That means less disruption to business. It’s also less expensive than bringing a civil action, making it easier for individuals to assert their rights or air their grievances. For these reasons and more, many businesses have incorporated arbitration provisions into their contracts and handbooks. The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925, yet these types of contractual agreements to arbitrate still get shot down in certain courts and by certain administrative authorities.more

Drivers v. Uber – The Arbitration Dispute

In Uber’s California litigation, Judge Chen has examined various aspects of the arbitration provisions contained in the various versions of Uber’s agreements with its drivers.  The 2013 Agreement and the 2014 Agreement shared several key features:

(1) all disputes not exempted from the scope of arbitration were subject to resolution by final and binding arbitration;

(2) arbitration could proceed only on an individual basis, not by class;

(3) the delegation clause in the provision stated that “disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, including the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision” shall be decided by the arbitrator; and,

(4) an opt-out clause allowed drivers to avoid the arbitration clause.

In separate litigation, the Court had Uber revise the opt-out provision to make it more conspicuous and less onerous on the drivers.  Because the 2013 Agreement contained the original opt-out provision, it did not stand a chance of being found enforceable.  In later 2014 and 2015 Agreements,  Uber included the provision in boldface and ALL CAPS with text larger than the provisions around it.  Language also was added to explain the significance of arbitration and the right to opt-out.  Additionally, to exercise that right now, a driver need only send an email to Uber stating his/her name and the desire to opt-out (although he/she could send a letter by regular mail, overnight delivery, or hand-delivery, too).  As a result, when the Court certified a class on September 1, 2015, those drivers who failed to opt-out of the provision were excluded from the class.  However, in December, the Court found the arbitration agreements were unenforceable on California public policy grounds, irrespective of the opt-out provision, thus dramatically increasing the size of the class.

Meanwhile, delegation clauses, like the one set forth under (3) above, seem to cause consternation in courts across the nation.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that courts are the typical adjudicators of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate in the first instance.  Because a delegation clause puts this determination in the hands of the arbitrator instead, it must be clear and unmistakable.  In Uber’s case, the clause was clear, but it was made ambiguous because it conflicted with other clauses contained in the Agreements.  For instance, a separate clause in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 driver agreements stated that the state and federal courts in San Francisco had exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes, actions, or claims arising out of the Agreement.  While Uber argued that the forum selection clause reserving jurisdiction in San Francisco courts was for any disputes found not subject to arbitration, Judge Chen did not buy into that argument.  He felt the clauses conflicted, and since the courts would have to apply rules of construction to resolve the ambiguity created by the competing clauses, that meant that the delegation clause was not clear and unmistakable, and therefore, was unenforceable.

The arbitration provision in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 Agreements also addressed responsibility for payment of the arbitrator’s fees.  It provided that if applicable law did not require Uber to pay for all of the costs and fees of arbitration, then the costs would be apportioned between the parties as required by law.  Judge Chen found that because the delegation clause would force drivers to pay exorbitant fees just to arbitrate whether or not their substantive disputes even belonged before the arbitrator in the first place, when drivers would not have to pay a court to make that determination, such a clause deprived drivers of any forum for their claims.

The arbitration provision contained three additional unfavorable terms which Judge Chen found were not sufficiently highlighted for the drivers’ attention.  For one, the confidentiality clause precluded the parties from disclosing the existence, contents, or results of any arbitration.  For another, the intellectual property carve-out clause excluded intellectual property disputes from arbitration – something the Court found favored Uber.  Finally, the unilateral modification clause permitted Uber to unilaterally modify the terms of the agreement without notice to the drivers.  As a result of all of the foregoing issues, the Court found the agreements to arbitrate were unconscionable.  Thus, Judge Chen refused to enforce them.

Can an enforceable arbitration agreement even be written? 

Arbitration agreements are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  While many are still disfavored, as I mentioned earlier, they are more likely to be upheld if they are not unconscionable.  The procedural component of the unconscionability analysis usually deals with the formation of the agreement itself.  This includes the characteristics of the parties (e.g., age, literacy, sophistication), the manner and circumstances under which the contract was executed, and whether terms of the agreement are hidden or complex, among other things.  The substantive component looks at the unfairness of the agreement.  Judge Chen, acknowledging that the issue wasn’t fully settled, nevertheless evaluated the arbitration provision through the lens of an employer/employee relationship.  Let me provide some tips that make arbitration agreements more likely to be upheld by courts in the employment context.

  • Keep your agreement to arbitrate in a separate document requiring a separate acknowledgement.

  • While the agreement may cover all workplace disputes between the parties, do not preclude employees from filing charges with state or federal administrative agencies, like the EEOC.

  • If you reserve the right to modify or discontinue the arbitration clause, include a requirement that notice will be given to employees and that the modification or rescission will be applied prospectively.

  • Since cost is a big issue for courts reviewing these agreements, make sure the employee will only be required to pay what the arbitrator finds is reasonable should the employee lose, or make sure the costs to pursue arbitration are not more costly than those to bring a lawsuit.

  • The remedies available in arbitration should be similar to those available in court.

  • Avoid delegation clauses.

As always, there is no substitute for consulting with an attorney when attempting to draft one of these agreements.

ARTICLE BY Vanessa L. Goddard of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Are they Worth Price of Paper They're Printed On? – Ubersization of Arbitration Clauses

Arbitration has long been treated as an inferior method of resolving disputes, despite pronouncements to the contrary from the U.S. Supreme Court. However, arbitration does serve a purpose. The process is less formalized, so it moves much faster than the court system. That means less disruption to business. It’s also less expensive than bringing a civil action, making it easier for individuals to assert their rights or air their grievances. For these reasons and more, many businesses have incorporated arbitration provisions into their contracts and handbooks. The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted in 1925, yet these types of contractual agreements to arbitrate still get shot down in certain courts and by certain administrative authorities.more

Drivers v. Uber – The Arbitration Dispute

In Uber’s California litigation, Judge Chen has examined various aspects of the arbitration provisions contained in the various versions of Uber’s agreements with its drivers.  The 2013 Agreement and the 2014 Agreement shared several key features:

(1) all disputes not exempted from the scope of arbitration were subject to resolution by final and binding arbitration;

(2) arbitration could proceed only on an individual basis, not by class;

(3) the delegation clause in the provision stated that “disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, including the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision” shall be decided by the arbitrator; and,

(4) an opt-out clause allowed drivers to avoid the arbitration clause.

In separate litigation, the Court had Uber revise the opt-out provision to make it more conspicuous and less onerous on the drivers.  Because the 2013 Agreement contained the original opt-out provision, it did not stand a chance of being found enforceable.  In later 2014 and 2015 Agreements,  Uber included the provision in boldface and ALL CAPS with text larger than the provisions around it.  Language also was added to explain the significance of arbitration and the right to opt-out.  Additionally, to exercise that right now, a driver need only send an email to Uber stating his/her name and the desire to opt-out (although he/she could send a letter by regular mail, overnight delivery, or hand-delivery, too).  As a result, when the Court certified a class on September 1, 2015, those drivers who failed to opt-out of the provision were excluded from the class.  However, in December, the Court found the arbitration agreements were unenforceable on California public policy grounds, irrespective of the opt-out provision, thus dramatically increasing the size of the class.

Meanwhile, delegation clauses, like the one set forth under (3) above, seem to cause consternation in courts across the nation.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that courts are the typical adjudicators of whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate in the first instance.  Because a delegation clause puts this determination in the hands of the arbitrator instead, it must be clear and unmistakable.  In Uber’s case, the clause was clear, but it was made ambiguous because it conflicted with other clauses contained in the Agreements.  For instance, a separate clause in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 driver agreements stated that the state and federal courts in San Francisco had exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes, actions, or claims arising out of the Agreement.  While Uber argued that the forum selection clause reserving jurisdiction in San Francisco courts was for any disputes found not subject to arbitration, Judge Chen did not buy into that argument.  He felt the clauses conflicted, and since the courts would have to apply rules of construction to resolve the ambiguity created by the competing clauses, that meant that the delegation clause was not clear and unmistakable, and therefore, was unenforceable.

The arbitration provision in Uber’s 2013 and 2014 Agreements also addressed responsibility for payment of the arbitrator’s fees.  It provided that if applicable law did not require Uber to pay for all of the costs and fees of arbitration, then the costs would be apportioned between the parties as required by law.  Judge Chen found that because the delegation clause would force drivers to pay exorbitant fees just to arbitrate whether or not their substantive disputes even belonged before the arbitrator in the first place, when drivers would not have to pay a court to make that determination, such a clause deprived drivers of any forum for their claims.

The arbitration provision contained three additional unfavorable terms which Judge Chen found were not sufficiently highlighted for the drivers’ attention.  For one, the confidentiality clause precluded the parties from disclosing the existence, contents, or results of any arbitration.  For another, the intellectual property carve-out clause excluded intellectual property disputes from arbitration – something the Court found favored Uber.  Finally, the unilateral modification clause permitted Uber to unilaterally modify the terms of the agreement without notice to the drivers.  As a result of all of the foregoing issues, the Court found the agreements to arbitrate were unconscionable.  Thus, Judge Chen refused to enforce them.

Can an enforceable arbitration agreement even be written? 

Arbitration agreements are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  While many are still disfavored, as I mentioned earlier, they are more likely to be upheld if they are not unconscionable.  The procedural component of the unconscionability analysis usually deals with the formation of the agreement itself.  This includes the characteristics of the parties (e.g., age, literacy, sophistication), the manner and circumstances under which the contract was executed, and whether terms of the agreement are hidden or complex, among other things.  The substantive component looks at the unfairness of the agreement.  Judge Chen, acknowledging that the issue wasn’t fully settled, nevertheless evaluated the arbitration provision through the lens of an employer/employee relationship.  Let me provide some tips that make arbitration agreements more likely to be upheld by courts in the employment context.

  • Keep your agreement to arbitrate in a separate document requiring a separate acknowledgement.

  • While the agreement may cover all workplace disputes between the parties, do not preclude employees from filing charges with state or federal administrative agencies, like the EEOC.

  • If you reserve the right to modify or discontinue the arbitration clause, include a requirement that notice will be given to employees and that the modification or rescission will be applied prospectively.

  • Since cost is a big issue for courts reviewing these agreements, make sure the employee will only be required to pay what the arbitrator finds is reasonable should the employee lose, or make sure the costs to pursue arbitration are not more costly than those to bring a lawsuit.

  • The remedies available in arbitration should be similar to those available in court.

  • Avoid delegation clauses.

As always, there is no substitute for consulting with an attorney when attempting to draft one of these agreements.

ARTICLE BY Vanessa L. Goddard of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

EPA OIG Will Evaluate EPA’s Management of Resistance Issues Related to Herbicide Tolerant GE Crops

EPAOn March 25, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) sent a memorandum to Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), announcing that it plans to begin preliminary research to assess EPA’s management and oversight of resistance issues related to herbicide tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops.  OIG states that its review will include the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), as well as other applicable headquarters and regional offices.  OIG’s objectives are to determine:

  1. What processes and practices, including alternatives, EPA has provided to delay herbicide resistance;

  2. What steps EPA has taken to determine and validate the accurate risk to human health and the environment for approved pesticides to be used to combat herbicide resistant weeds; and

  3. Whether EPA independently collects and assesses data on, and mitigates actual occurrences of, herbicide resistance in the field.

OIG states that the anticipated benefit of the project “is a greater understanding of herbicide resistance[,] which will lead to an enhancement of EPA’s herbicide resistance management and oversight.”

Commentary

Pesticide resistance is not a new issue and is one that EPA has affirmatively addressed when granting registrations for new products, GE or not, for some time.  In fact, that newer chemistries often have a more niche mode of action to reduce potential toxicity concerns has led some observers to speculate that greater resistance is one potential trade-off for the development of less toxic materials.

This “investigation” may appear to some to be a response to concerns raised by critics of GE crops generally and to a recent EPA decision to approve Enlist Duo herbicide, a new formulation of 2,4,D- and glyphosate designed to address the problem of weed resistance to glyphosate-tolerant crops.  Glyphosate tolerant crops were first approved some years ago, and their use was so broadly and readily adopted that issues have arisen with regard to potential resistance to some weed species.  EPA is currently expected to approve another GE strain, Dicamba-tolerant crops, to control glyphosate tolerant weeds.

To critics of GE crops, using more herbicides to control problems caused by what they claim is overuse of another herbicide is evidence of a troubling “pesticide treadmill,” which they believe should not have been allowed to occur in the first place.  Rebutting this criticism, others assert that resistance is a problem for all pesticides, not only genetically modified ones, and that with sufficient controls, resistance can be delayed, if not avoided.  Registrants point out that it is very much in their self-interest to take steps to avoid resistance to their products — once that occurs, the market viability of the product is significantly reduced.

ARTICLE BY Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala & Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
©2016 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing “Untainted” Assets

In a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for criminal defendants’ right to counsel of their choice, the Supreme Court decided on March 30, 2016 that the government cannot freeze “untainted” assets that are not related to any alleged wrongdoing. Reaching this conclusion, the Court overturned an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming an order freezing a defendant’s assets that, while not obtained as a result of, or traceable to, the criminal conduct alleged, represented property of “equivalent value” to the illegal proceeds.

Writing for the majority in Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, drew a bright constitutional line, rooted in principles of property law, between tainted and untainted assets.  The Court stated that the latter “belongs to the defendant, pure and simple.  In this respect, it differs from a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementation, or concealing of a crime.”  Weighing these property rights, together with the “fundamental character” of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, against the government’s stated interests, the Court reasoned that “in our view, insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks.”

The Court found further support for its decision in the fact that, absent the ability to use untainted funds to secure counsel, “[t]hese defendants, rendered indigent, would fall back upon publicly paid counsel, including overworked and underpaid public defenders” and that “increasing the government-paid-defender workload [would] render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect.”

The majority’s opinion also sought to address the concerns of the dissenting justices that, given the fungible nature of money, “sometimes it will be difficult to say whether a particular bank account contains tainted or untainted funds.”  Justice Breyer noted that “the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction we require in this case.”

Notably, while the petitioner’s assets in Luis had been frozen under a statute applying to violations of health care laws,” see 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a), the same statute also applies to a wide range of white collar crimes, including bank theft and bribery, as well as money laundering.

Article By Glen A. Kopp & David A. Shargel of Bracewell LLP

© 2016 Bracewell LLP

Supreme Court Rules Against Freezing "Untainted" Assets

In a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for criminal defendants’ right to counsel of their choice, the Supreme Court decided on March 30, 2016 that the government cannot freeze “untainted” assets that are not related to any alleged wrongdoing. Reaching this conclusion, the Court overturned an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming an order freezing a defendant’s assets that, while not obtained as a result of, or traceable to, the criminal conduct alleged, represented property of “equivalent value” to the illegal proceeds.

Writing for the majority in Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, drew a bright constitutional line, rooted in principles of property law, between tainted and untainted assets.  The Court stated that the latter “belongs to the defendant, pure and simple.  In this respect, it differs from a robber’s loot, a drug seller’s cocaine, a burglar’s tools, or other property associated with the planning, implementation, or concealing of a crime.”  Weighing these property rights, together with the “fundamental character” of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, against the government’s stated interests, the Court reasoned that “in our view, insofar as innocent (i.e., untainted) funds are needed to obtain counsel of choice, we believe that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the court order that the Government seeks.”

The Court found further support for its decision in the fact that, absent the ability to use untainted funds to secure counsel, “[t]hese defendants, rendered indigent, would fall back upon publicly paid counsel, including overworked and underpaid public defenders” and that “increasing the government-paid-defender workload [would] render less effective the basic right the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect.”

The majority’s opinion also sought to address the concerns of the dissenting justices that, given the fungible nature of money, “sometimes it will be difficult to say whether a particular bank account contains tainted or untainted funds.”  Justice Breyer noted that “the law has tracing rules that help courts implement the kind of distinction we require in this case.”

Notably, while the petitioner’s assets in Luis had been frozen under a statute applying to violations of health care laws,” see 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a), the same statute also applies to a wide range of white collar crimes, including bank theft and bribery, as well as money laundering.

Article By Glen A. Kopp & David A. Shargel of Bracewell LLP

© 2016 Bracewell LLP

The Smart Phone Patent Saga Continues: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

In a case involving suits, countersuits and multiple appeals by the two giants of the mobile phone space, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding of infringement, voiding the accompanying award to Apple of more than $119 million. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case Nos. 015-1171, -1195, -1994 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 26, 2016) (Dyk, J).

In this case’s third appeal, the Federal Circuit was asked to deal with “the core infringement and invalidity issues with respect to the asserted patents.” At issue were five patents asserted by Apple against Samsung (four of which a jury found to be infringed) and two patents asserted by Samsung against Apple (one of which the same jury found to be infringed).

After the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict ($120 million to Apple and $160,000 to Samsung), both sides appealed.

The Apple Patents

With regard to the Apple “click structure” patent, the Federal Circuit found that no reasonable jury could have concluded that the accused Samsung devices included the claimed “analyzer server,” and reversed the judgment of infringement. Before trial, neither party sought construction of “analyzer server,” agreeing that it should be given its ordinary meaning. On the last scheduled day of the trial, the Federal Circuit construed this term (in the Motorola case) as “a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client.” The district court adopted this construction and permitted the parties to recall their expert witnesses to provide testimony under this construction. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that Apple failed to present sufficient testimony that the accused software library programs in the Samsung phones ran separately from the programs they served (i.e., the Browser and Messenger applications), as required by the Federal Circuit’s construction. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement.

Apple also asserted its “slide to unlock” patent, whereby a user can slide a moving image across the screen with a finger in order to unlock the phone, and its “auto correct” patent, whereby a phone automatically corrects typing errors. At the district court, Samsung sought JMOL that both of these patents were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit agreed.

For the “slide to unlock” patent, Apple did not dispute that the prior art combination disclosed all of the claimed features. Rather, Apple argued that the jury could have reasonably found that one of the references taught away from using the “slider toggle” feature, and that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine these references, since the slide toggle reference describes a wall-mounted touch-screen device, not a mobile phone. The Federal Circuit  disagreed, concluding that “[t]he fact that [the prior art reference] notes that users did not prefer the particular design of the slider toggle is not evidence of teaching away.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that a motivation to use the teachings of a particular prior art reference need not be supported by a finding that the feature is the “preferred, or the most desirable” option.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the reference is not analogous art since it concerned user interfaces for touch-screen devices, noting that the asserted patent and the reference both disclose essentially the same structure: a touch-screen device with software that allows the user to slide his or her finger across the screen to change interface states.

The Federal Circuit also dismissed Apple’s secondary considerations argument, noting that although Apple identified the unsolved problem as the lack of an “intuitive” method of unlocking a touch-screen portable device, it provided no evidence showing that the asserted need was recognized in the industry. With respect to industry praise, the Court noted that evidence of approval by Apple fans—who may or may not have been skilled in the art—is not legally sufficient.

With respect to copying, the Federal Circuit noted the only evidence of copying went to an unlock mechanism using a fixed starting and ending point for the slide—a feature disclosed in the prior art. Finally, with respect to commercial success, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Apple’s evidence was not sufficient to show a “nexus” between the patented feature and the commercial success of the iPhone. Accordingly, the evidence of secondary considerations was insufficient as a matter of law to overcome the prima facie obviousness case.

Apple also asserted its “universal search” patent that permits a user to search for results from both the phone and the internet based on a single search term. On appeal, the issue was whether the search feature on the Samsung phones “locates” information on the internet. The district court found that Samsung devices do not search the internet, but rather blend data previously retrieved from a Google server and a local database. Apple argued that the plain meaning of the claim covered search information previously downloaded from the internet, a construction the  district court denied. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial.

The Samsung Patents

Samsung asserted a patent directed to capturing, compressing and transmitting videos. In its claim construction order, the district court construed “means for transmission”—a means-plus-function claim limitation—to require software in addition to hardware. Samsung argued that the district court erred in its construction because the specification did not “require any software for transmission, and including such software [in addition to hardware] as necessary structure was error.” The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the term “transmission” implies communication from one unit to another, and the specification explains that software is necessary to enable such communication. The Federal Circuit noted that software is necessary because hardware alone does nothing without software instructions telling it what to do, and affirmed the district court’s construction of the term and the judgment of non-infringement.

As for Samsung’s patent directed to a camera system for compressing, decompressing and organizing digital files, the jury found that Apple had infringed, and the district court denied Apple’s post-trial motion for JMOL of non-infringement. Apple argued that no reasonable jury could have found that the Apple products met the “compressor” and “decompressor” limitations of the claim because these limitations require components that compress or decompress both still images and videos, and its products use separate and distinct components to compress and decompress still images and videos. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that Samsung presented testimony that identified a single Apple design chip with circuitry that performs compressing/decompressing methods for both images and videos.

Practice Note: Assuming this decision resolves the utility patent fight, the only remaining battle shifts to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has now agreed to hear Samsung’s appeal on the issue of damages in connection with design patent infringement. See CertAlert in this issue of IP Update.

Article By

Nitin Gambhir
McDermott Will & Emery
© 2016 McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Union Agency Fees Still Alive

The U.S. Supreme Court was equally divided 4-to-4 on a case that asked the Justices whether to overturn long-established law that allows a public sector union to charge an agency or service fee to those employees who choose not to join the union. With the Court equally split, the lower court’s decision is automatically affirmed, and public sector unions can continue to charge agency fees to employees who do not join the union.

Overturning Abood Appeared A Real Possibility

In the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, the Supreme Court ruled that unions could charge an agency fee to public employees who chose not to join the union to cover the union’s costs to negotiate a contract that covers all the public employees. For over thirty years, that has been settled law. In 2014, however, the Court suggested it might be willing to overturn Abood, questioning its analysis on several grounds, including whether a mandatory agency fee violates a non-union member’s First Amendment right to free speech.

That apparent willingness to overturn Abood set up the First Amendment challenge to public union agency fees in this term’s case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. At the oral argument in Friedrichs in January, the Court’s more conservative Justices appeared ready to overrule Abood. Even the four more liberal Justices appeared to concede that the First Amendment argument may be tough to uphold but instead focused on the importance of not overturning prior rulings unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The long-standing Abood precedent appeared in jeopardy.

Justice Scalia’s Death Creates Stalemate 

Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected death in February left the Court at a 4-to-4 stalemate in Friedrichs. With the even split, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling applying Abood stands.

Opponents of unions and the Abood decision will have to wait for another case to work its way through the judicial system to raise the issue for consideration by a future Court. Of course, depending on who fills Justice Scalia’s vacancy, the majority of Justices may no longer have an appetite to reconsider Abood. We’ll all have to wait and see. In the meantime, public sector unions may continue to charge agency fees to those employees not paying union dues.

Article By Jason S. Ritchie of  Holland & Hart LLP

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Ohio v. Sierra Club: The Integrity of the Clean Air Act

EPAYesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it will not grant Certiorari in Ohio v. Sierra Club, et al. In this case, the Sixth Circuit found an area must adopt required pollution-control measures before the EPA can designate it as having satisfied the law’s health-based pollution standards.

In 1997, the EPA created the National Ambient Air Quality Standards of fine particulate matter in the air.  When the EPA created these standards, regions were designated as having met, or not met the air quality standards.  In order to meet the standards, states were required to adopt “reasonable measures and technologies” to reduce the pollution in the problematic areas.  In 2011, the EPA deemed Ohio to have met the appropriate standards because the air quality had improved. Ohio, however, had never created a pollution regulatory plan as the Clean Air Act required. In response, the Sierra Club filed suit alleging the EPA acted illegally by designated the areas as having met air quality standards.

Creating a pollution regulatory plan is crucial, according to Sanjay Narayan, the managing attorney for the Sierra Club on the case.  Before 1990, the Clean Air Act had no requirement that states produce an implementation plan.  According to Narayan, the expectation was “we [the EPA] don’t care how you get there, we aren’t going to tell you how to get there, we’re just going to check in at the deadline and expect you to have made it. And what happened was that the vast majority of the states did not meet the deadline.”

Narayan describes the implementation plan as “a show your math” requirement. This has been very useful in helping states create lasting change in their air quality–by creating a regulatory framework that shows how they can reduce air pollution, the states are more likely to meet their deadline.  Narayan points out “It’s also useful for other areas to know what worked and what successful areas did.  Here’s what turned out to be cost effective, that kind of record is tremendously useful as we move forward on what was meant to be a nation-wide campaign for healthy air for the public.”

In  Ohio v. Sierra Club, there are a few details to consider.  Pollution decreased, and that’s the goal.  However, it might not be that simple.  In the years preceding Ohio’s drop in air pollution, the economy crashed.  Narayan draws comparisons to the Beijing Olympics, saying, “When people aren’t running their [industrial] plants for economic reasons, the air cleans up a little bit.  But it turns around quickly once you turn the plants back on.”  However, Ohio did meet the standard, and according to Narayan, to comply with the Clean Air Act they’d simply need to go back and show their work.  He says, “They did meet the standard, and they say they have all the controls they need in place.  There is a procedural step that Ohio hasn’t taken, and it shouldn’t be hard for Ohio to take it.”

The Sixth Circuit decision that currently stands requires Ohio to take those regulatory steps. In the current case, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the entire portion of the Clean Air Act must be followed, and that it wasn’t enough for Ohio to have simply met the standards.  Ohio has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Narayan says, “It’s about the integrity of the clean air act.”  These requirements are crucial in ensuring the air gets cleaned up in a timely manner.  Narayan says, Decades of experience has shown us that without these requirements, states miss deadlines, air pollution lasts for much longer than it should and the public really suffers.  The pollution sends kids to the hospital with asthma, it creates respiratory disease in the elderly-delay is a disaster for public health.”

Article By Eilene Spear & Nicole Cudiamat Minnis of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
Copyright ©2016 National Law Forum, LLC

California Employers: New Poster to be Posted April 1, 2016

Did you recently update your workplace posters? Time to do it again.

In California, all employers have obligations to satisfy workplace posting, such as posting information related to wages, hours and working conditions. The workplace posters must be placed in an area frequented by employees where these posters may be easily read during the workday.

As a result of new amended regulations pertaining to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) going into effect on April 1, 2016, certain covered employers must post a new poster on April 1, 2016. Employers with 5 or more employees (full-time or part-time) are covered by the FEHA and must post a specific notice, which replaces Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) Notice A. This new poster, titled “Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee,” provides clarifications of the PDL, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Eligible employees are entitled up to four months of leave per pregnancy, and not per year;

  • The four months means the working days the employee would normally work in one-third of a year or 17 1/3 weeks; and

  • PDL does not need to be taken all at once, but can be taken on an as-needed basis as required by the employee’s health care provider.

For a copy of this poster, click here.

Under the California Code of Regulations, “[a]ny FEHA-covered employer whose work force at any facility or establishment is comprised of 10% or more persons whose spoken language is not English shall translate the notice into every language that is spoken by at least 10 percent of the workforce.”  The Spanish version of the foregoing notice should be available soon here.

Any time employers are required to update their posters and/or new (or amended) regulations are issued, employers should take the opportunity to ensure their workplace posters and their employee handbooks and policies are up to date and compliant.

Article By Pascal Benyamini of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

©2016 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

Superman Breyer v. Batman Lourie Battle in Sequenom Petition for Cert.

This is an amplification of my last post on the Sequenom petition for cert. in Sequenom v. Ariosa. I have been arguing for some years that the patent world will never be at rest where diagnostic claims are concerned until the patent eligibility of a simple “If A, then B” claim is addressed by the Fed. Cir. and/or the Supreme Court.

This is the type of claim criticized by Justices Breyer, Souter and Stevens in the “Metabolite Labs dissent” of 2006, when the Court declined to decide the patent-eligibility of a method of detecting a deficiency of cobalamin or folate by assaying a body fluid for an elevated level of homocysteine and correlating the elevated level with a cobalamin or homocysteine deficiency.” Justice Breyer just called the claim a law of nature with a mental step.

Fast forward to 2012 and the Mayo decision (132 S.Ct. 1289), and the Supreme Court invalidated an awkwardly drafted claim that I will re-write here as a method of medical treatment claim:

A method of treating an immunoregulatory disorder by administering a [known drug] so that the metabolite levels of said drug in the blood are between 1 and 10 um/l. (I made up the concentrations, but they represent, on the low side, minimal acceptable efficacy and, on the high side, unacceptable side effects. This is what the Court viewed as a natural phenomenon or correlation).

The Alice decision led the Court to the “Mayo Rule,” that a claim reciting a natural law, phenomenon or abstract idea had to be inspected to see if, in combination with the additional steps, it contained a further inventive concept that would render the claim patent-eligible under s. 101. Little guidance has been provided by the courts or the PTO as to how this rule should be applied in the case of life science claims, particularly to diagnostic claims. (Dicta in Mayo suggested that the Court did not view the claim as directed to a diagnostic method.)

Enter Arisoa. The Fed. Cir. held that the Mayo Rule rendered all the appealed claims patent-ineligible as directed to a natural phenomenon combined with well-known laboratory techniques. And, in fact, most of the appealed claims are broad. Here is claim 1 of US 6,258,540:

  1. A method for detecting a paternally inherited[cffDNA] …which method comprises amplifying a paternally inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin from a serum or plasma sample [from a pregnant female] and detecting the presence of cffDNA in the sample.

That’s it. In an earlier post, I noted that only claim 21 recites that a diagnostic test is carried out of the amplified cffDNA. The final step of this claim reads: “providing a [prenatal] diagnosis based on the presence and/or quantity and/or sequence of the foetal nucleic acid.”

The Federal Circuit opinion below noted that this claim was on appeal but did not mention it again in its opinion. But, in Sequenom’s petition it is the only claim that is reproduced in full. Sequenom states that “Claim 21 situates [the steps of amplification and detection of cffDNA] within a larger diagnostic method that up-ended conventional practice.”

Sequenon knew both that a claim to cffDNA in maternal blood was unpatentable as a natural phenomenon. The isolated and purified cffDNA obtained after amplification and detection is a patent-ineligible natural product thanks to Myriad. So Sequenom’s decided that its best approach was to argue that the isolation and detection steps where not conventional because they had never previously been used to isolate and detect the target biomarker, cffDNA. So the Question posed to the Supreme Court might have been: “Is a method directed to isolating a biomarker from a patient sample where it had not been known by the art to occur, patent-eligible under s. 101?” But that is not exactly how Sequenom saw it in its petition, when it wrote that the Question Presented is:

“Whether a novel method is patent-eligible where; (1) a researcher is the first to discover a natural phenomenon; (2) that unique knowledge motivates him to apply a new combination of known techniques to that discovery, and (3) he hereby achieves a previously impossible result without preempting other uses of that discovery.”

The “Question” is more difficult to interpret than many claims, and raises more questions than it answers. Why does the method have to be novel to meet the requirements of s. 101? What is the “natural phenomenon”? But these are minor quibbles that Judge Breyer seems to have answered to his own satisfaction. In other words, any diagnostic test will be based on the discovery of a natural phenomenon. In this case it is not the correlation between cffDNA and any pathological state, it is the existence of cffDNA in maternal blood. Remember, only claim 21 recites carrying out a diagnostic assay based on the cffDNA, but the claim does not recite the condition that is detected.

To continue, the “unique knowledge” [of cff DNA in maternal blood] motivates researcher to apply a new combination of known techniques to that discovery. But the only conceivable difference between the known techniques used to amplify and detect cffDNA and the known techniques to measure elevated homocysteine, does not lie in the analytic techniques but in the marker that is being detected or measured. In other words, the known techniques are in “new combination” because of the marker to which they are applied.

The last factor in the Sequenom Question requires the researcher to achieve a previously impossible result without preempting other uses of the discovery. This can be no more than an tautological attempt to save the claims that do not recite carrying out a diagnostic test. But what is the impossibility that has been overcome? The previously impossible result can only be a blood test that can yield information about the state of the fetus. And all practitioners soon learn the danger of labeling the results of an invention as previously impossible.

But doesn’t any new diagnostic test achieve a result that is “impossible” before it was discovered? To come full circle, it was surely “impossible” to predict the likelihood of a man’s developing prostate cancer before the PSA assay was discovered – e.g., before it was discovered that PSA was a fairly reliable biomarker for imminent or present prostate cancer. (And there were other uses for the homocysteine assay as well – at least in 2006, lack of preemption would not have saved that claim from Justice Breyer.)

Until the recognition of the significance of a natural correlation by a researcher is given weight as an “unconventional step” per se, the relentless degradation of patent claims for both diagnostic methods and methods of medical treatment [remember my Mayo claim, above] will continue. That’s why Judges Lourie and Moore are my current superheroes, since, in their Ariosa concurrence, they wrote that “the patent’s claims merely ‘rely on or operate by, but do not recite [claim?] a natural phenomenon…and that barring such inventions under s. 101 would mean that ‘nothing in the physical universe would be patent eligible.’” Sequenom wants the Supreme Court to reverse on the basis that the Fed. Cir. is applying the Mayo Rule too broadly. I don’t think they are wrong. I just don’t like the condition of the horse they rode in on.

Article By Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
© 2016 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.