The National Law Forum

Federal Circuit Grants Patent Term Adjustment After Allowance When Continued Examination Requested

On January 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Novartis v. Lee (No. 2013-1160, -1179), holding that time spent in “continued examination” is excluded from a patent term adjustment even where the continued examination occurs after the application has been pending for more than three years. However, the Federal Circuit also held that the time excluded for continued examination is limited to the time before allowance of the application, and therefore positive patent term adjustment accrues from the date the application is allowed to issuance of the patent, as long as no later examination occurs.

Patent Term Adjustment

Applicants may be entitled to patent term adjustment (PTA) to remedy certain delays caused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during prosecution of an application. 35 U.S.C. § 154 specifies the patent term guarantees which, if not met, can serve as bases for PTA. In particular, § 154(b)(1)(B) provides one day of PTA for every day an application is pending for more than three years (known as “B delay”). According to § 154(b)(1)(B)(i), B delay does not include “any time consumed by continued examination of the application,” such as the filing of a Request for Continued Examination.

The Federal Circuit’s Decision

According to Novartis’ interpretation of the statute, applicants are entitled to PTA for any time spent by the USPTO after three years from the application filing date, even if continued examination has been requested. In contrast, the USPTO argued that the statutory language clearly excludes any time consumed by continued examination, no matter when it was initiated.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO, stating that PTA “should be calculated by determining the length of time between application and patent issuance, then subtracting any continued examination time and determining the extent to which the result exceeds three years.” The Federal Circuit also found the USPTO’s construction was otherwise supported by the statutory purpose and structure.

However, the Federal Circuit agreed with Novartis on the other statutory interpretation issue. Novartis argued that time consumed by continued examination should be limited to the time before allowance of an application, as long as no later examination actually occurred, while the USPTO argued that any time up until issuance of a patent should be excluded. The Federal Circuit rejected the USPTO’s reasoning, indicating that because a case not involving continued examination would undisputedly be entitled to the time from allowance to issuance, there was no basis for treating a case involving continued examination differently.

The following schematic illustrates the Federal Circuit’s holding:

USPTO

Article by:

Lori M. Brandes, Ph.D.

Eric K. Steffe

Of:

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Department of State Predicts EB-5 Visa Retrogression for China

Based upon the demand for EB-5 visa numbers and the volume of approved I-526 Petitions, the Department of State has issued a preliminary warning that a cut-off date may need to be established for China. No other countries in the EB-5 category will be impacted. If a cut-off date is established, it will not take effect until sometime after July 2014. This will only affect those born in mainland China and does not apply to those born in Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

Despite this preliminary warning, EB-5 investors should think hard before delaying the filing of an I-526 Petition or taking any other actions directly related to the possibility of EB-5 retrogression in China. In December 2012 the Department of State also predicted the establishment of a cut-off for China, but then reversed itself in February 2013. New EB-5 visas will become available on the first day of the next fiscal year, October 1, 2014, and the extremely slow processing of I-526 Petitions could spread the demand for EB-5 visas into the next fiscal year. It is important to note, the slow I-526 Petition processing times has also impaired the ability of the Department of State to predict whether EB-5 visa retrogression will occur.

On the flip side, if U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) speeds up I-526 processing the possibility of EB-5 visa retrogression will increase. As we have noted before, whether or not EB-5 visa retrogression takes place will have no effect on the processing of I-526 Petitions by USCIS. If the EB-5 visa does retrogress, it will likely delay individuals with approved I-526 Petitions from entering the U.S. and obtaining conditional permanent residency. This also may affect the way jobs are allocated to those EB-5 investors in the regional center context. Furthermore, once an I-526 Petition is approved, a child who is a derivative beneficiary of that I-526 Petition does not receive protection under the Child Status Protection Act. This could result in some children of EB-5 investors “aging out” if an I-526 Petition is approved but there are no EB-5 visas available.

In the regional center context, EB-5 visa retrogression may affect EB-5 investors from other countries. Some regional center projects involve loans which cannot be paid off until each EB-5 investor in that project has had their respective I-829 Petition adjudicated. Similarly, many new commercial enterprises in the regional center context have clauses in their operating agreements which prevent distributions from occurring until every EB-5 investor in that new commercial enterprise has had their respective I-829 Petition adjudicated.

Article by:

Dillon R. Colucci

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

To 8-K, or not to 8-K? For Target, that is indeed the question.

As anyone with a pulse and a computer, television or carrier pigeon knows, Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT) suffered a major data breach in December – the extent of which is still being uncovered – and pegs the latest number of customers that have had their personal information stolen anywhere from 70 to 110 million. As a public company, a breach of this magnitude should be material enough to warrant a Form 8-K filing, right? As of this post, Target doesn’t seem to think so.

Form 8-K contains mandatory disclosure requirements when certain enumerated events occur, as in the entry into a material definitive agreement (Item 1.01) or the resignation of a director (Item 5.02). Reporting an event such as the Target data breach would likely fall under Item 8.01 of Form 8-K, which is used to report “Other Events.” Item 8.01 permits the registrant, at its option, to disclose any events not otherwise called for by another Form 8-K Item that the registrant “deems of importance to security holders,” and is an entirely voluntary filing.

Although filing under Item 8.01 of Form 8-K is voluntary, other companies that have suffered smaller data breaches have opted to file an 8-K to disclose such breaches, including The TJX Companies, Inc.’s (NYSE: TJX) breach disclosed in an 8-K in January, 2007, and Morningstar, Inc.’s (NASDAQ: MORN) more recent breach disclosed in an 8-K in July, 2013. Target’s securities lawyers may believe that the breach is not “important to security holders,” or is not sufficiently material enough to the roughly $38 billion company to warrant the filing of an 8-K, but 70 to 110 million affected customers is hardly immaterial, even for Target. In a statement released January 10, Target warned that the costs related to the breach “may have a material adverse effect on Target’s results of operations in fourth quarter 2013 and/or future periods.”

Indeed, Target evidently determined when filing its Form 10-K for 2012 that the risk of a data security breach was material enough to warrant disclosure in its risk factors:

“If our efforts to protect the security of personal information about our guests and team members are unsuccessful, we could be subject to costly government enforcement actions and private litigation and our reputation could suffer.”

The nature of our business involves the receipt and storage of personal information about our guests and team members. We have a program in place to detect and respond to data security incidents. To date, all incidents we have experienced have been insignificant. If we experience a significant data security breach or fail to detect and appropriately respond to a significant data security breach, we could be exposed to government enforcement actions and private litigation. In addition, our guests could lose confidence in our ability to protect their personal information, which could cause them to discontinue usage of REDcards, decline to use our pharmacy services, or stop shopping with us altogether. The loss of confidence from a significant data security breach involving team members could hurt our reputation, cause team member recruiting and retention challenges, increase our labor costs and affect how we operate our business.” (emphasis added)

Of course, there is no time limit for filing under Item 8.01 of Form 8-K due to it being a voluntary filing, so a filing may still be forthcoming from Target. In any event, one can only imagine that the risk factor language above will look very different in Target’s next Form 10-K filing in two months.

Article by:

Adam M. Veness

Cynthia J. Larose

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Registering Your Trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse – Is Your House in Order?

“It’s happening – the biggest change to the Internet since its inception” is how the president of ICANN’s Generic Domains Division has described the new gTLD Program being implemented by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and rightfully so. The new program will result in the expansion of available generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), such as .COM, .NET or .ORG, from the list of 22 that we’ve all become familiar with through the years, to a list of possibly 1,400 generic Top-Level Domains.

On October 23, 2013, the first new gTLDs were “delegated”. This means they were introduced into the Internet’s “Root Zone”, the central authoritative database for the Internet. As a result, the domain name Registries, the organizations approved to operate these and other soon-to-be-delegated gTLDs, can execute the final processes required to make their domain names available to Internet users. ICANN claims that the purpose of this unprecedented expansion of domain name extensions is to enhance competition, innovation and choice in the Domain Name space, providing a wider variety of organizations, communities and brands new ways to communicate with their audiences. As available real estate in the “.com” territory has become increasingly scarce, it is hoped that the new gTLDs will provide additional space for entities and individuals to set up an online presence. While it is true that virtually every two or three letter combination seems to have already been registered in the “.com” Top-Level Domain, this explosion of new generic top-level domains also means big bucks for domain name registrars and additional costs for trademark owners who properly protect their marks.

While 4 new gTLDs were delegated in October, the delegation has been a rolling process, with new generic Top-Level Domains being released in November, December and January. Below are just a few of some the gTLDs that have successfully completed the process. The list will continue to be expanded as the measured rollout of the new gTLDs progresses over the coming years:

.equipment

.kitchen

.diamonds

.bike

.shoes

.technology

.enterprises

.gallery

.education

.graphics

.ceo

.ventures

As the new gTLD program is rolled out, many trademark owners are wisely looking for ways to protect their brands from being registered by third parties as domain names in the new gTLD space without their knowledge or consent. In view of the rapidly changing gTLD landscape, owners need to be aware of how to protect their marks, sooner rather than later.

What Does All This Mean for Brand Owners?

Over the past year, there has been significant discussion and concern in the legal community regarding the potential for trademark infringement by third parties seeking to register domain names that incorporate the brands of others under these newly released gTLDs.

In light of the potential for infringement, ICANN has established certain mechanisms for the new gTLD program in order to try and protect the rights of brand owners. The main tool for doing so is the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), an entity created by ICANN with which trademark owners can register their marks in advance of the new gTLD launches.

Brand owners who register their trademarks with the TMCH can take advantage of a priority, or “sunrise”, period during which they are entitled to register domain names that are identical to their marks, before registration opens to the general public. In addition, the TMCH provides the brand owner with automatic notification of any third-party attempts to register domain names that are identical to their marks, enabling the mark owner to then take appropriate legal action. To be clear, this mechanism does not stop third-parties from registering domain names identical to marks registered with the TMCH, but does notify the brand owner, or its representative, of such registration. These devices provide brand owners with help against cyber squatters seeking to register infringing domain names under the new gTLDs.

Registration of a trademark with the TMCH is available for registered trademarks, marks protected by statute or treaty, or court-validated marks. Registration is also available for any other marks protectable under the new gTLD registry’s policies and that meet the eligibility requirements of the TMCH. Registration with the TMCH is encouraged for brand owners in order to combat infringement of their brands in cyberspace and registration costs currently are $150 per mark for a one-year term of registration, $435 for a three-year term, and $725 for a five-year term. Such registration with the TMCH does not include fees that will be charged by the new gTLD registrars to register domain names during the “sunrise” or general public registration periods.

The biggest change to the Internet since its inception is happening now…make sure your marks are protected!

Article by:

Nicole M. Meyer

Of:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Supreme Court Holds That State Attorney General Actions are Not “Mass Actions” Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

On January 14, the Supreme Court of the United States held that lawsuits that are filed in the name of a State Attorney General but seek relief on behalf of a State’s citizens cannot be removed to federal court as “mass actions” under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). See Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-1036 (Jan. 14, 2014). Resolving a split between the Fifth Circuit on the one hand and the Fourth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits on the other, the ruling means that businesses will have to defend AG actions in state courts, and state courts will have to resolve whether such actions can proceed even though the consumers on whose behalf they are brought have agreed to settle their claims in a class action or, conversely, to pursue their own claims individually rather than collectively.

“Mass Actions”

CAFA gives federal courts original subject matter jurisdiction over certain “class actions” and “mass actions.” It defines a “class action” as “any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action” and defines a “mass action” as “any civil action . . . in which the monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of law or fact, except that jurisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action [exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs].” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(1)(B), (d)(11)(B)(i).^[1] Excluded from the definition of “mass action” are (among other things) actions in which “all of the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public (and not on behalf of individual claimants or members of a purported class) pursuant to State statute specifically authorizing such action . . . .” Id.§ 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(III).

**The Hood Case**

Jim Hood, the Attorney General of Mississippi, filed a parens patriaeaction that alleged that the companies that manufacture and market liquid crystal display (LCD) panels had engaged in price-fixing that violated the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and Mississippi Antitrust Act. Hood sought equitable and compensatory relief on behalf of both the State and its citizens. The defendants removed the action to federal court under CAFA and the Attorney General moved to remand. The district court remanded, finding that the suit was not a “mass action” because it fell within the definition’s “general public” exception. The Fifth Circuit reversed. Looking at each claim rather than the action as a whole, it reasoned that the real parties in interest were not only the State but also the individual citizens who had purchased LCD products, and as a result the “claims of 100 or more persons [we]re proposed to be tried jointly.” Id. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(i). Hood then petitioned for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion is a primer on statutory construction:

Respondents argue that the [mass action] provision covers [AG actions] because “claims of 100 or more persons” refers to “thepersons to whom the claim belongs, i.e., the real parties in interest to the claims,” regardless of whether those persons are named or unnamed. We disagree.

To start, the statute says “100 or more persons,” not “100 or more named or unnamed real parties in interest.” Had Congress intended the latter, it easily could have drafted language to that effect. Indeed, when Congress wanted a numerosity requirement in CAFA to be satisfied by counting unnamed parties in interest in addition to named plaintiffs, it explicitly said so: CAFA provides that in order for a class action to be removable, “the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes” must be 100 or greater, and it defines “class members” to mean “the persons (named or unnamed) who fall within the definition of the proposed or certified class.” Congress chose not to use the phrase “named or unnamed” in CAFA’s mass action provision, a decision we understand to be intentional.

More fundamentally, respondents’ interpretation cannot be reconciled with the fact that the “100 or more persons” referred to in the statute are not unspecified individuals who have no actual participation in the suit, but instead the very “plaintiffs” referred to later in the sentence—the parties who are proposing to join their claims in a single trial….^[2]

The Court then rejected the argument that “plaintiffs” should be read as including both named and unnamed parties, finding that such a reading “stretches the meaning of ‘plaintiff’ beyond recognition” and would impose an “administrative nightmare” on the lower courts:

The term “plaintiff” is among the most commonly understood of legal terms of art: It means a “party who brings a civil suit in a court of law.” It certainly does not mean “anyone, named or unnamed, whom a suit may benefit,” as respondents suggest.

…

Yet if the term “plaintiffs” is stretched to include all unnamed individuals with an interest in the suit, then §1332(d)(11)(B)(i)’s requirement that “jurisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims [exceed $75,000]” becomes an administrative nightmare that Congress could not possibly have intended. How is a district court to identify the unnamed parties whose claims in a given case are for less than $75,000? Would the court in this case, for instance, have to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the identity of each of the hundreds of thousands of unnamed Mississippi citizens who purchased one of respondents’ LCD products between 1996 and 2006 (the period alleged in the complaint)? Even if it could identify every such person, how would it ascertain the amount in controversy for each individual claim?

…

We think it unlikely that Congress intended that federal district courts engage in these unwieldy inquiries. By contrast, interpreting “plaintiffs” in accordance with its usual meaning—to refer to the actual named parties who bring an action—leads to a straightforward, easy to administer rule under which a court would examine whether the plaintiffs have pleaded in good faith the requisite amount. Our decision thus comports with the commonsense observation that “when judges must decide jurisdictional matters, simplicity is a virtue.”^[3]

The decision means that the troubling trend of retaining private class action lawyers to file public AG actions in state courts can continue and could conceivably quicken. It also raises a number of interesting questions the Court did not address, for example whether AG actions are barred by agreements to settle class actions brought on behalf of the same consumers,^[4] or affected by agreements to resolve claims in individual arbitration rather than representative litigation.^[5]

_{[1] The defendants did not ask the Court to hold that the case qualified as a “class action,” although they had raised that point below. See Opinion at 4 & n.2.}

_{[2] Opinion at 5-6 (emphasis in original, citations omitted).}

_{[3] Id. at 7-10 (citations omitted).}

_{[4] Cf. New Mexico ex rel. King v. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., 13-0513, 2013 WL 5944087, at *4-8 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2013) (finding that class action settlement barred AG action to the extent it sought compensatory relief).}

_{[5] Cf. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 206 Cal. App. 4th 949, 964 (2012) (finding that Concepcion requires enforcement of waiver of right to bring representative action under California’s Private Attorney General Act), review granted Sept. 19, 2012 (No. S204032).}

Article by:

Michael P. Daly

Jessica D. Khan

Of:

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Bedside Manner: The Key to Landing and Retaining Clients

Practicing law is very much a client-centric business and providing exceptional service is pivotal to a successful practice. Are you providing the service that your clients expect?

Survey after survey will tell you that the #1 reason why clients fire attorneys is “lack of responsiveness” or in general an overall lack of customer service. Correspondingly, the top reason clients hire lawyers is empathy and responsiveness. Keeping clients and potential clients happy is the key to not only maintaining, but growing your practice. The following are a few tips for ensuring that your bedside manner doesn’t impede your ability to attract and retain new clients.

client retention bedside manner law office management

Return Calls Promptly

The legal industry and in particular personal injury law is highly competitive. Speedy response time to new leads is the key to higher conversions (See our recent article about response time:http://www.rwlynchblog.com/the-key-to-converting-more-leads/). But your bedside manner doesn’t end there: lack of responsiveness is the most cited reason for firing a lawyer. Return client calls as soon as possible, even if it’s an email (or a call from a secretary or paralegal) that lets them know that their call is important to you and that you will respond as soon as possible.

Listen

Our most successful attorneys can attest to this advice: listen to everything a potential client has to say about his/her potential case. Yes, some potential clients can run off on tangents that are seemingly unrelated to a case. However, some of the best cases our clients say they’ve landed are cases that other attorneys turned away; simply because they didn’t take the time to listen and ask the right questions. Don’t lose potential clients because “you don’t have the time” to sort through all of the “riff-raff”. Giving your full attention and asking questions will allow you to uncover the important nuggets of information you may miss otherwise.

Don’t Use Legalese

Take the time to explain legal issues in a way your clients can easily understand them. These are complicated issues and clients are often scared and confused. Explaining issues in a clear and concise manner devoid of legal jargon will put your clients at ease.

Above All Empathize

Taking the time to care, explain the process and reassure clients will not only help you retain clients but will create a lasting impression that will ensure those clients will continue to refer new business your way.

Article by:

Brian Lynch

Of:

RW Lynch Company, Inc.

A Look Ahead: Top 5 Health Law Issues for 2014

From Affordable Care Act implementation to the continued transition to quality and evidence-based medicine, we expect to see a host of new regulatory and industry changes in 2014. Moreover, federal and state governments will continue to ramp up detection and enforcement of fraud, abuse, and other laws. These changes provide ample opportunities for lawyers to represent and counsel health care industry clients.

In addition to health lawyers, these changes and new opportunities will also affect lawyers who practice in other areas, including business, antitrust, technology, employee benefits, and elder law. Below is an overview of five hot issues in health care law that practitioners – new and seasoned – should monitor in 2014.

1. Affordable Care Act Implementation

Exchanges and the Individual Market. As millions of Americans obtain insurance on the individual market through Exchanges (a.k.a. the “Marketplace”), the ACA individual mandate and the individual insurance market will create a host of issues for health lawyers in 2014. Beginning early in the year, health lawyers will be called on to address coverage, enrollment, and compliance issues. Attorneys and firms looking to expand their ACA practice should consider employee benefits regulations and related legal issues as ACA implementation continues and employers look for help understanding and complying with coverage requirements and pay or play rules.

Medicaid. The ACA’s expansion of Medicaid will also bring increased attention to the Medicaid program in 2014. Attorneys should be prepared to see increased scrutiny of program integrity in the coming year, including inspector general attention at the state and federal levels (e.g., program audits). Attorneys may be called upon to address these and other Medicaid issues in 2014, including issues with eligibility, covered benefits, and movement between Exchanges and Medicaid.

Tax Exemption. Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code, introduced as part of the ACA, requires, among other things, that tax-exempt hospitals conduct a community health needs assessment and adopt a written financial assistance policy. Hospitals that do not meet the 501(r) requirements risk an excise tax, taxing of hospital revenue, and revocation of exempt status. Proposed regulations outlining the 501(r) requirements were released in 2013, and final rules are expected in 2014.

2. Health Information Privacy and Security

This year is shaping up to be another big year for health information privacy and security and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as providers, payers, and businesses that support the health care industry (including lawyers) adapt to new compliance requirements and increased liability under the Omnibus Rule regulatory scheme.

This is an area that will be important for health lawyers, as the Omnibus Rule outlines clear compliance requirements for lawyers providing legal services to providers and payers. (For more information on lawyers as business associates, see “Casting a Wider Net: Health Information Privacy is Not Just For Health Lawyers” in the September 2013 Wisconsin Lawyer).

Health lawyers are also awaiting the 2014 release of another major HIPAA rule – expected to outline requirements for tracking uses and disclosures of health information – as well as legislative changes in Wisconsin dealing with confidentiality of mental health records (an in-depth Wisconsin Lawyer article on this is forthcoming).

Lawyers that deal with health information should be familiar with HIPAA and other federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality of health information to address an increased emphasis on HIPAA audits, security, and technology issues in 2014.

3. Provider Reimbursement and Emphasis on Quality Care

Medicare Billing and Payment. As of this writing, Congress is still debating options for repealing the sustainable growth rate (SGR), which is part of a reimbursement formula used to calculate Medicare physician payments. For years, the SGR has resulted in cuts to physician payments. However, Congress has always used SGR “doc fixes” to extend and delay the cuts (most recently, on Dec. 18, 2013, a 23.7 percent cut set to take effect Jan. 1, 2014, was delayed until March).

However, bipartisan efforts in Congress may make 2014 the year of the SGR repeal. Health care attorneys should take note because the SGR repeal will mean significant changes in how Medicare physician reimbursement is calculated, and the wide-spread effect will touch any number of contractual arrangements that use Medicare reimbursement to set compensation terms.

Quality-based Reimbursement. We have seen a steady change from productivity-based compensation models, which pay for volume, to quality-based reimbursement models, and 2014 will continue this progression. Attorneys that represent physicians and physician practices should be prepared for the introduction (or addition) of quality metrics in physician compensation arrangements, as well as an increase in co-management arrangements and opportunities, which engage physicians in hospital management to better align physicians and hospitals.

Narrow Networks. With additional products available in the individual insurance market in 2014 and an increased focus on performance-based contracting, payers are tying rate increases to quality metrics and tightening provider networks. Attorneys representing physician groups may see an increase in narrow network products and, as a result, their clients’ exclusion from networks.

Changing reimbursement concepts are not new but some methodologies will affect physician behavior, require more patient engagement, and influence efficiency as the industry demands accountable care and continues to introduce quality-based incentives.

4. Increased Joint Venture Activity and Market Consolidation

We expect to see increased joint venture activity and market consolidation in 2014. Increasing market share and patient population allows providers and payers to introduce and monitor their quality care initiatives to a broader base of patients and standardize care with the hope of better outcomes and efficiency. Attorneys representing parties in these transactions should be mindful of fair market value and other fraud and abuse requirements, leasing and construction considerations, and potential antitrust implications.

5. Government Enforcement

The health care industry has seen increased government scrutiny, including emphasis on payment, program integrity, and compliance. From Medicare and Medicaid compliance audits, Strike Teams, increased HIPAA penalties, overpayment recoupment, to fraud and abuse self-disclosures and intervening in whistleblower suits, the federal government is improving its enforcement mechanisms used against hospitals and providers. The federal agencies and their contractors have increased their damages and penalty recoveries over the last few years, and we expect this to continue in 2014.

The primary goal of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) strategic plan for 2014 to 2018 is fighting fraud, waste, and abuse. In order to achieve its goal, the OIG intends to build upon existing enforcement models, refine self-disclosure protocols, and use all appropriate means (including exclusions and debarments) to maximize recovery.

If you are new to health care, or if you want to expand your practice into health law, these areas of strict liability and increased enforcement will be fundamental to your practice in 2014. Understanding the complex regulations and strict liability statutes is fundamental to providing sound legal and business advice to health care clients.

Honorable Mentions

Retail health clinics and on-site health services, changes in medical malpractice standards, increased emphasis on post-acute care, non-physician health care professionals, and the corporate practice of medicine will also be hot topics in 2014.

This article was first published in WisBar Inside Track, Vol. 6, No. 1, a State Bar of Wisconsin publication.

Article by:

Meghan C. O’Connor

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Judge Rules in Favor of DOJ Finding Bazaarvoice / PowerReviews Merger Anticompetitive (Department of Justice)

On January 8, 2014, Judge Orrick of the Northern District of California ruled that Bazaarvoice’s acquisition of competitor PowerReviews violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The ruling was in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The public version of the opinion was made available on January 10. In its self-described “necessarily lengthy opinion,” which spans 141 pages, the court ultimately found that the facts overwhelmingly showed the acquisition will have anticompetitive effects and that Bazaarvoice did not overcome the government’s prima facie case. The case included 40 witnesses at trial, more than 100 depositions and 980 exhibits. Dr. Carl Shapiro testified as DOJ’s economist and Dr. Ramsey Shehadeh testified on behalf of Bazaarvoice/PowerReviews. The court noted that the case presented some difficult issues, including that there were no generally accepted “market share statistics covering the sales of R&R solutions or social commerce solutions and no perfect way to measure market shares.” And while neither side presented flawless analyses, the court found Dr. Shapiro’s approaches more persuasive than those of Dr. Shehadeh.

Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews each offered sophisticated “R&R platforms.” R&R platforms provide a user interface and review form for the collection and display of user-generated content (i.e., user reviews) on the product page of a commercial website where the product can be purchased. Often these are in the form of star ratings and open-ended reviews in a text box. R&R platforms increase sales for the retailer and have a variety of different features. The court noted that many on-ine retailers view an R&R platform as “necessary.” Before the merger, Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews offered similar products and features and targeted similar customers.

The court found that the relevant product market was the narrow “R&R platforms,” rather than the broader “social commerce tools” or “eCommerce platforms.” The court went through many popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, explaining why each was not a substitute for these R&R platforms. In this relevant market, the court found that PowerReviews was Bazaarvoice’s only real competitor, and thus the merger “would eliminate Bazaarvoice’s only meaningful commercial competitor.”

At the end of the opinion, the court commented on the role of antitrust “in rapidly changing high-tech markets.” It noted that there is a debate as to whether antitrust is properly suited to assess competitive effects in these markets. The court declined to take sides and stated that its “mission is to assess the alleged antitrust violations presented, irrespective of the dynamism of the market at issue.”

The case now moves to the remedy phase. In its complaint, the DOJ requested that the court order Bazaarvoice to divest assets originally possessed by either Bazaarvoice and/or PowerReviews to create a viable, competing business. However, as Judge Orrick noted, 18 months after the merger, it may not be so simple to divest assets. The judge scheduled a conference for January 22 with the parties to discuss a possible remedy.

There are several lessons to be gathered from this case. First, the Bazaarvoice litigation is further evidence that the antitrust agencies are not shy about litigating mergers they feel are anticompetitive. The DOJ invested significant resources and time – including three full weeks at trial in California – into litigating the case, beginning with its investigation that it launched two days after the firms closed their transaction on June 12, 2012. It has established a significant record of bringing, and winning, merger cases.

Second, this is a significant event, having a federal district court evaluate a consummated merger transaction. While the agencies have challenged many non-reportable transactions, almost all have been resolved by consent order, or litigated through the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) in-house administrative hearing process (where, not surprisingly, the FTC essentially always wins). Accordingly, parties to a non-reportable transaction that raises significant antitrust risks should expect the agencies to investigate and, if warranted, litigate.

Third, the Court heavily discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments regarding lack of any actual anticompetitive effect, because the companies knew the DOJ was reviewing the deal and could moderate their behavior. The court discounted Bazaarvoice’s arguments that none of the 104 customers who were deposed complained that the merger has hurt them. The court stated “it would be a mistake to rely on customer testimony about effects of the merger for several reasons.” Among the reasons the court included was “Bazaarvoice’s business conduct after the merger was likely tempered by the government’s immediate investigation; the customers were not privy to most of the evidence presented to the Court, including that of the economic experts; many of the customers had paid little or no attention to the merger; and each had an idiosyncratic understanding of R&R based on the priorities of their company and their different levels of knowledge, sophistication, and experience.” Thus, while raising prices after a transaction provides strong evidence to support the government’s case, the lack of a price increase does not necessarily support the merging parties’ defense.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the case shows the need to be circumspect in preparing ordinary course documents. Aside from the fact that in reportable transactions, the DOJ and FTC are entitled to “4(c)” and “4(d)” documents about the transaction, once a second request is issued or discovery begins, documents created in the ordinary course of business are discoverable. This includes Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analyses, board meeting minutes, business and strategic plans, market and market share analyses, and competitive assessments. In this case, the court found the ordinary course documents, and particularly those made by the companies’ executives, some of the most persuasive evidence. The court quoted extensively from the documents and cited numerous documents from Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews that showed that the parties viewed each other as their primary competitor, that there were no other strong competitors in this market, that the two companies operated in essentially a duopoly, and that the intent of the merger was to eliminate a primary competitor. Despite the parties’ efforts to explain away these documents, the court was not persuaded. Thus, it is important that companies carefully consider what to include in documents and e-mails, and assume that any non-privileged material may be discovered.

The agencies’ aggressive pursuit of perceived anticompetitive, non-reportable transactions places a premium on parties’ evaluating the antitrust risk.

The public version of the court’s opinion can be found here:http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f302900/302948.pdf

Article by:

Carrie G. Amezcua

Of:

McDermott Will & Emery

The Seventh Circuit Breaks from the Pack; Prohibits Employers from Challenging the EEOC’s Pre-Lawsuit Conciliation Efforts

When the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes a finding of reasonable cause after its investigation of a discrimination charge, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act instructs the EEOC to “…endeavor to eliminate any such unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.” The statute also provides that the EEOC may proceed to filing a lawsuit against the employer only if it “…has been unable to secure from the Respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.” In EEOC v. Mach Mining LLC, No. 13-2456, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) recently held that employers may not challenge the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conciliation efforts as an affirmative defense to the lawsuit. By its decision, the Seventh Circuit broke away from the majority of Federal Courts of Appeal. The EEOC called the ruling in Mach Mining a “landmark” victory in its press release.

As part of its recent initiatives, the EEOC has been very aggressive in filing lawsuits and in the past few years has suffered setbacks with many courts critical of the Agency’s pre-lawsuit investigatory and conciliation efforts. The defense tactic of raising the failure of the EEOC to engage in good faith conciliation efforts as an Affirmative Defense has been widely used by employers’ attorneys in discrimination lawsuits brought by the EEOC. In many cases the EEOC might fail to even attempt face-to-face negotiation, refuse to provide information requested by the employer to assist in conciliation, or simply make a “take it or leave it proposal” before rushing to the courthouse to file a lawsuit.

The essence of the Court’s decision is that conciliation is an informal process in which the EEOC is to “try” to obtain a settlement acceptable to it. The Court also found that Title VII gives the EEOC “sole discretion” to determine whether a conciliation proposal is acceptable and further noted that Title VII is silent as to the standards by which the adequacy of the Agency’s conciliation efforts can be measured. Finally the Court found that permitting the employer to raise inadequate conciliation efforts as a defense to a discrimination claim would undermine the enforcement goals of Title VII. According to the Court, employers could drag out discrimination litigation by turning “what was meant to be an informal investigation into the subject of endless disputes over whether the EEOC did enough before going to court.” At least in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, the EEOC’s methods, the negotiation process and whether the EEOC has acted in good faith in attempting to resolve a charge before filing a lawsuit no longer matters.

Although it is not yet known whether Mach Mining will petition the United States Supreme Court to resolve the split between the Seventh Circuit and the majority of other Courts of Appeal, it is likely this issue will someday be decided by the Supreme Court.

Article by:

Steven J. Teplinsky

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Department of State Releases February 2014 Visa Bulletin

Bulletin shows no movement of cutoff dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 India categories; the cutoff dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 China categories show minor forward movement with EB-3 China continuing to move ahead of EB-2 China.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its February 2014 Visa Bulletin.The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow ofadjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad, provided that their priority dates are before the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the February 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

At the end of fiscal year 2013, there were considerable advancements in cutoff dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 India categories. In order to regulate the large increase in demand that followed, these cutoff dates retrogressed significantly in December. In January, there was no movement in cutoff dates for the EB-2 and EB-3 India categories; meanwhile, cutoff dates for the EB-3 China category continued to move ahead of those for the EB-2 China category. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin again indicates no movement in cutoff dates for the EB-2 and EB-3 India categories with continued advancement of cutoff dates for the EB-3 China category ahead of the EB-2 China category.

A cutoff date of September 1, 2013 for individuals in the family-based F2A category from Mexico, as well as a cutoff date of September 8, 2013 for individuals in the F2A category from all other countries, remains in effect.

EB-1: Cutoff dates for all EB-1 categories will remain the same.

EB-2: The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will remain unchanged from last month at November 15, 2004. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance by 31 days to January 8, 2009. Cutoff dates for the EB-2 category for all other countries will remain the same.

EB-3: The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will remain unchanged from last month. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by 61 days. The cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines will advance by 59 days. The cutoff date for individuals chargeable to Mexico and the Rest of the World will advance by 61 days.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: June 1, 2012 (forward movement of 61 days)
India: September 1, 2003 (no movement)
Mexico: June 1, 2012 (forward movement of 61 days)

Philippines: April 15, 2007 (forward movement of 59 days)
Rest of the World: June 1, 2012 (forward movement of 61 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The cutoff dates for EB-2 individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been the same since November 2012. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin indicates no change to these categories. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through February 2014.

China

The January 2014 Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 8, 2008 for EB-2 individuals chargeable to China. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 8, 2009, reflecting forward movement of 31 days. This means that EB-2 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date before January 8, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2014.

India

Between August and September 2013, the cutoff date for EB-2 individuals chargeable to India advanced by approximately three and a half years. This was followed in December 2013 by retrogression of the cutoff date by three and a half years to November 15, 2004 due to unprecedented demand for EB-2 visa numbers from applicants chargeable to India. The cutoff date remained unchanged in the January 2014 Visa Bulletin, and the February 2014 Visa Bulletin again indicates no change. This means that only EB-2 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date before November 15, 2004 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2014.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

There were significant advancements in cutoff dates for EB-3 individuals chargeable to most countries in the latter half of 2013. In January, the cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category from China, Mexico, and the Rest of the World advanced by 183 days, and the cutoff date for individuals in the EB-3 category chargeable to India remained unchanged.

China

From September through December 2013, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to China advanced by 2.75 years. The January 2014 Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 1, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 183 days. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of June 1, 2012, reflecting additional forward movement of 61 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to China with a priority date before June 1, 2012 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2014. As noted above, this cutoff date remains later than that imposed for individuals chargeable to China in the EB-2 category.

India

In the January 2014 Visa Bulletin, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to India was September 1, 2003. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of this cutoff date. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to India with a priority date before September 1, 2003 may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through February 2014.

Rest of the World

From September through December 2013, the cutoff date for EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World advanced by 2.75 years. The January 2014 Visa Bulletin indicated forward movement to April 1, 2012. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of June 1, 2012, reflecting additional forward movement of 61 days. This means that EB-3 individuals chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date before June 1, 2012 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

In October 2013, a cutoff date of September 1, 2013 was imposed for F2A spouses and children of permanent residents from Mexico, and a cutoff date of September 8, 2013 was imposed for F2A spouses and children of permanent residents from all other countries. There was no movement of these cutoff dates in December or January. The February 2014 Visa Bulletin again indicates no movement. This means that AOS applicants with a priority date that falls on or after the applicable September cutoff date will be unable to file AOS applications or have applications approved in February 2014.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain the same. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the February 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

Article by:

Eric S. Bord

Lisa Stephanian Burton

Tracy Evlogidis

Malcolm K. Goeschl

Eleanor Pelta

A. James Vázquez-Azpiri

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Patent Term Adjustment

The Federal Circuit’s Decision

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

“If our efforts to protect the security of personal information about our guests and team members are unsuccessful, we could be subject to costly government enforcement actions and private litigation and our reputation could suffer.”

Share this:

Like this:

What Does All This Mean for Brand Owners?

Share this:

Like this:

“Mass Actions”

The Hood Case

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Share this:

Like this:

Return Calls Promptly

Listen

Don’t Use Legalese

Above All Empathize

Share this:

Like this:

1. Affordable Care Act Implementation

2. Health Information Privacy and Security

3. Provider Reimbursement and Emphasis on Quality Care

4. Increased Joint Venture Activity and Market Consolidation

5. Government Enforcement

Honorable Mentions

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Bulletin shows no movement of cutoff dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 India categories; the cutoff dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 China categories show minor forward movement with EB-3 China continuing to move ahead of EB-2 China.

What Does the February 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

China

India

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

India

Rest of the World

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

How This Affects You

Share this:

Like this:

**The Hood Case**