Tag: Litigation

Texas Supreme Court Makes Enforcement of Noncompete Agreements Easier for Employers

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP  a good recap of the Texas Supreme Court decision which clarifies the standards for enforcing noncompete agreements: 

On June 24, the Texas Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision clarifying the standards for enforcement of noncompete agreements under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. In Marsh USA Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Cos. v. Rex Cook, the court considered whether an employee’s receipt of stock options could sustain an agreement that prohibited the employee from soliciting or accepting business from certain customers of Marsh McLennan (Marsh).

Noncompete agreements, which include prohibitions on working for a competitor and limitations on an employee’s ability to solicit customers, are governed in Texas by the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Under that statute, such agreements may be enforced only if they contain reasonable limitations with respect to geography, time, and scope of activity to be prohibited and only if they are “ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement.” Texas courts, as well as practitioners and employers, have struggled with this latter requirement. The Cook case represents a significant change in Texas law and a departure from the Texas Supreme Court’s previous analysis of noncompete agreements.

Under previous court decisions, the analytical focus was on the type of consideration provided by the employer in exchange for the employee’s promise to refrain from competing. Specifically, a Texas employer seeking to enforce a noncompete agreement must have been able to show that the consideration it provided to the employee “gave rise to an interest” in restraining competition. For example, an employer’s promise of trade secrets or confidential information was deemed sufficient consideration to support a noncompete agreement whereas simple cash consideration was not.

In Cook, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether an employer’s grant of stock options satisfied the “ancillary” prong of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Cook joined Marsh in 1983 and signed an agreement under which he could exercise certain stock options in exchange for signing an agreement limiting his ability to solicit or accept business from clients of Marsh with whom he had business dealings during his employment. Cook thus signed the noncompete agreement not when he was provided the original grant of stock options, but rather when he chose to exercise the options.

After his separation from employment with Marsh, Cook went to work for a competitor. He thereafter was sued by Marsh for breach of his contract and for breach of fiduciary duty. Cook filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court on the grounds that the agreement was unenforceable under the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The trial court granted Cook’s motion and an appellate court affirmed that ruling.

The Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, disagreed with the lower courts and reversed the grant of summary judgment. Significantly, the court overruled previous authority that focused on the type of consideration provided by the employer and the assessment of whether or not that consideration “gives rise” to an interest in restraining competition. Rather, the court construed the Texas Business and Commerce Code as requiring simply that there be a nexus between the noncompete agreement and the employer’s interests, holding that the noncompete agreement “must be reasonably related to the [employer’s] interest worthy of protection.” The court emphasized Cook’s high-level executive position with the company and found that, by providing an ownership interest in the company, the stock options provided to Cook were “reasonably related to the company’s interest in protecting its goodwill, a business interest the [Texas Business and Commerce Code] recognizes as worthy of protection.” The noncompete was thus enforceable on that basis.

As a practical matter, Cook should make enforcement of noncompete agreements easier in Texas. The decision represents a shift from the previous, more technical focus on the type of consideration provided in the noncompete agreement to a more generalized assessment of the employer’s interests in restraining competition. Cook follows a trend of other recent Texas Supreme Court cases that have found that the enforcement of noncompete agreements should be decided in the context of the overall purpose of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which is to provide for reasonable restrictions that protect legitimate business interests.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Gamble with My Money: When a Lawsuit Seeks Damages in Excess of Policy Limits, What Are the Insured's Rights in Illinois?

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Daniel J. Struck and Neil B. Posner of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.  a good overview of R.C. Wegman Construction Company v. Admiral Insurance Company which help address the issues involved with insurance claims in excess of policy limits in Illinois: 

In general, if a lawsuit is covered or potentially covered by a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend that claim. If the insurer provides that defense without reserving its rights to deny coverage, the insurer is entitled to select defense counsel and control the defense. But when the insurer defends under a reservation of rights, that reservation may create a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured.

The leading Illinois Supreme Court case on this subject is Maryland Casualty v. Peppers, decided in 1976. According to Peppers, when an insurer defends an insured, but reserves the right to deny coverage based on an exclusion in the insurance policy (the applicability of which could be established during the course of defending the insured), there is a conflict of interest that gives the insured the right to select independent counsel to defend it at the insurer’s expense. But the Illinois Supreme Court did not say that this is the only conflict of interest that could give rise to the insured’s right to select independent defense counsel.

In R.C. Wegman Construction Company v. Admiral Insurance Company, decided in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit answered a question that has vexed Illinois insureds for a long time. Although the case involves a relatively uncommon set of facts, the court’s ruling in Wegman recognizes the conflicting interests that can arise between insureds and insurers when an insured faces a claim in which there is a “non-trivial probability” that there could be a judgment in excess of policy limits.

The Nuts and Bolts of Wegman

R.C. Wegman Construction Company was the manager of a construction site at which another contractor’s employee was seriously injured. Wegman was an additional insured under a policy issued by Admiral Insurance to the other contractor. When the worker sued Wegman, Admiral acknowledged its duty to defend, apparently without reserving any rights, and undertook the control of Wegman’s defense. The Admiral policy provided $1 million in per-occurrence limits of liability. Although it soon became clear that there was a “realistic possibility” that the underlying lawsuit would result in a settlement or judgment in excess of the policy limits, Admiral never provided this information to Wegman.

Shortly before trial, a Wegman executive was chatting about the case with a relative who happened to be an attorney. That relative pointed out the risk of liability in excess of policy limits, and mentioned that it was important for Wegman to notify its excess insurers. But by then it was too late, and the excess insurer denied coverage because notice was untimely. A judgment was entered against Wegman for more than $2 million. Wegman sued Admiral for failing to give sufficient warning of the possibility of an excess judgment so that Wegman could give timely notice to its excess insurer. According to the Seventh Circuit, the key issue was whether this situation—in which there was a risk of judgment in excess of the limit of liability, and where the insurer was paying for and controlling the defense—gave rise to a conflict of interest.

Admiral’s explanation for failing to inform Wegman was ultimately part of its downfall. Because there were other defendants in the underlying lawsuit, there was a good chance that Wegman would not be held jointly liable and that if a jury determined that Wegman was no more than 25% responsible for the worker’s injury, Wegman’s liability would have been capped at 25% of the judgment. Admiral’s trial strategy was not to deny liability, but to downplay Wegman’s responsibility. Admiral, however, never mentioned this litigation gambit to Wegman!

In the Seventh Circuit’s view, this was a textbook example of “gambling with an insured’s money.” And that is a breach of an insurer’s fiduciary duty to its insured.

When a potential conflict of interest arises, the insurer has a duty to notify the insured, regardless of whether the potential conflict relates to a basis for denying coverage, a reservation of rights, or a disconnect between the available limits of coverage and the insured’s potential liability. Once the insured has been informed of the conflict of interest, the insured has the option of hiring a new lawyer whose loyalty will be exclusively to the insured. In reaching its Wegman conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited the conflict-of-interest rule established by the Illinois Supreme Court’s Peppersdecision. Thus, a potential conflict of interest between an insured and an insurer concerning the conduct of defense is not limited to situations in which the insurer has reserved its rights.

In rejecting Admiral’s arguments, the Seventh Circuit explained that a conflict of interest (1) can arise in any number of situations and (2) does not necessarily mean that the conflicted party—the insurer—has engaged in actual harmful conduct. A conflict of interest that permits an insured to select independent counsel occurs whenever the interests of the insured and the insurer are divergent, which creates a potential for harmful conduct.

The conflict between Admiral and Wegman arose when Admiral learned that a judgment in excess of policy limits was a “non-trivial probability.” When confronted with a conflict of this type, the insurer must inform the insured as soon as possible in order to allow the insured to give timely notice to excess insurers, and to allow the insured to make an informed decision as to whether to select its own counsel or to continue with the defense provided by the insurer.

Looking Beyond Wegman

The fact pattern discussed in Wegman, however, is not the only situation in which there may be a conflict of interest between an insurer and an insured concerning the control of the defense. Under the supplemental duty to defend in a CGL policy, an insured is entitled to be defended until settlements or judgments have been paid out in an amount that equals or exceeds the limits of liability. The cost of defense does not erode the limits of liability, which means that the supplemental duty to defend is of significant economic value to an insured.

The following hypothetical situations (involving an insured covered by a CGL policy with $1 million in per-occurrence and aggregate limits of liability and a supplemental duty to defend) illustrate the economic value of the duty to defend:

  • The insured is sued 25 times in one policy year. In each instance, the insurer acknowledges coverage and undertakes to defend the lawsuits. Each lawsuit is dismissed without the insured becoming liable for any settlements or judgments. The total cost of defending these 25 lawsuits is $1.5 million. The limits of liability are completely unimpaired with $1 million in limits of coverage remaining available.
  • The insured is a defendant in dozens of lawsuits alleging that one of the products it sells has a defect that has caused bodily injury. The insurer agrees to defend. The lawsuits are consolidated, and the costs of defense accumulate to more than $2.5 million. Eventually, there is a global settlement of the lawsuits for $1 million. Thus, a total of $3.5 million has been paid out on an insurance policy with a $1 million limit of liability.
  • The insured is involved in a catastrophic accident for which he was solely responsible and in which four other people were permanently disabled. Each of the victims files a lawsuit and the realistic projected liability exposure to each victim is $1.5 million—or $6 million collectively. Shortly after the complaints are filed (and before there has been any significant discovery or investigation), three of the plaintiffs make a joint offer to settle their claims for a collective $1 million. The insurer and the insured both believe that this is an outstanding settlement opportunity, but the fourth plaintiff wants her day in court. If the insured agrees to this promising settlement opportunity, the limits of liability will be exhausted, the duty to defend will be extinguished, and the insured will be forced to pay for his own defense or rely on his excess insurance to reimburse him for defense costs.

Any insured who has been in the position of defending against either a serious claim or a multitude of smaller claims will understand that the supplemental duty to defend under a CGL policy may have much greater economic value than the limit of liability alone.

In these kinds of situations—when either the potential liability exceeds policy limits or there are multiple claims against the insured such that the economic value of the defense is worth more than the limit of liability—who should be allowed to control the defense of claims against the insured? In prior cases (Conway v. County Casualty Insurance Company [1992] and American Service Insurance Company v. China Ocean Shipping Co. [2010]), Illinois courts concluded that an insurer cannot be excused of any further duty to defend by paying out its remaining limits to the plaintiffs or by depositing its policy limits into court. But this rule does not address the conflict of interest when (1) it is in the insurer’s financial interest to avoid the potentially unlimited expense of defending its insured but (2) it is in the insured’s interest to continue receiving a defense that may have greater financial value than the limits of liability of a primary CGL policy.

Thanks to the Wegman decision, there is now some authority acknowledging that the insured’s right to select independent counsel may exist even if the insurer defends without a reservation of rights. The court recognized that the insurer-insured relationship and the right to control the defense is fraught with potential conflicts. Therefore, it is more important than ever for insureds to protect their interests.

Editor’s note: For more on the insured’s right to a defense, see “Policyholders and the Right to a Defense: Don’t Be Left Holding the Bag.”

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

 

Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Caraco

Posted yesterday at the National Law Review by Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. deatils about the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., v. Novo Nordisk:   

Today (June 27, 2010), the Supreme Court granted cert. in yet another patent appeal, Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., v. Novo Nordisk, (Supreme Ct. 10-844). Earlier this month, I did an extensive post on the decision below, in which the Fed. Cir. denied Caraco’s counterclaim seeking to strike the broad “use code” that Novo had put on its drug, Prandin (U-968). Even though Caraco would market the generic for a narrower use, the broad use code effectively prevented Caraco from “carving out” the still-patented use(s) from its labeling, thus effectively keeping it off the market.

I took a chance by posting on this one because the Solicitor General’s office recommended review and there was a strong dissent below. However, when the appeal started getting some attention in the press – though the issues were often mischaracterized – it began to look more likely that cert. would be granted. I am not so sure that the Fed. Cir.’s recent streak of affirmances will be left intact.

© 2011 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

Supreme Court Limits Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction – Stern v. Marshall

Posted recently at the National Law Review by Prof. G. Ray Warner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP – the latest installment of the Anna Nicole Smith / J. Howard Marshall estate issue and how it impacts the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts:   

 

In a decision that may create serious problems for bankruptcy case administration, the Supreme Court this morning invalidated part of the Bankruptcy Court jurisdictional scheme. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179, 564 U.S. ___ (June 23, 2011). Specifically, the Court held that the Bankruptcy Courts cannot issue final judgments on garden variety state law claims that are asserted as counterclaims by the debtor or trustee against creditors who have filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy case.

Thus, while the Bankruptcy Court could issue a final order resolving the creditor’s claim against the estate, it could issue only a proposed ruling with respect to the counterclaim. Final judgment on the counterclaim could only be issued by the District Judge after de novo review of any matters to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c).

In a five-to-four opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had reversed an $88 million judgment in favor of Vickie Lynn Marshall (a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith) against E. Pierce Marshall for tortious interference with Vickie’s expectancy of a gift from her late husband J. Howard Marshall, Pierce’s father and one of the richest people in Texas.

The Court’s decision was based on constitutional principles defining the limits of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it is likely to have implications that reach far beyond the narrow issue resolved in the instant case. The majority relies on the “public rights” doctrine to define the class of judicial matters that can be resolved by non-Article III tribunals like the Bankruptcy Courts. However, it adopts a narrower view of what constitutes “public rights” than was generally understood prior to this decision.

In addition, although earlier cases could be read to adopt a flexible pragmatic approach to Article III that focused only on significant threats to the Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts takes a very firm approach, stating, “We cannot compromise the integrity of the system of separated powers and the role of the Judiciary in that system, even with respect to challenges that may seem innocuous at first blush.” Of particular interest, this case focuses on the nature of the Bankruptcy Judge as a non-Article III judge (i.e., no life tenure and no salary protection) and rejects the view that the Bankruptcy Courts are merely “adjuncts” of the Article III District Courts. Note that the “adjunct” construct was one of the foundations of the 1984 Act’s post-Northern Pipeline jurisdictional fix that created the core/non-core distinction. See Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

The narrow holding is that Bankruptcy Judges, as non-Article III judges, lack constitutional authority to hear and “determine” counterclaims to proofs of claim if the counterclaim involves issues that are not essential to the allowance or disallowance of the claim. Here, although the counterclaim was a compulsory counterclaim, it was a garden variety state law tort claim and did not constitute a defense to the proof of claim. Contrast this with the preference claim involved in Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990). The receipt of such an unreturned preference is a bar to the allowance of the claim. See 11 U.S.C. 502(d). The opinion also distinguishes Langenkamp (and the earlier pre-Code case of Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323 (1966)) on the ground that the preference counterclaims in those cases were created by federal bankruptcy law. It is unclear whether that reference establishes a second condition to Bankruptcy Court resolution of counterclaims — i.e., that the counterclaim be based on bankruptcy law in addition to its resolution being essential to claim allowance.

The Court begins its opinion by interpreting the “core” jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1). The Court finds the provision ambiguous, but rejects the view of the Ninth Circuit that the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction to determine matters involves a two-step process of deciding both whether the matter is “core” and whether it “arises under” the Bankruptcy Code or “arises in” the bankruptcy case. The Court states that such a view incorrectly assumes there are “core” matters that are merely “related to” the bankruptcy case (and which cannot be “determined” by the Bankruptcy Court). The Court states that core proceedings are those that arise in a bankruptcy case or arise under bankruptcy law and that noncore is synonymous with “related.” Thus, since counterclaims to proofs of claim are listed as core in the statute, the Bankruptcy Court has statutory authority to enter final judgment. (Note that the opinion does not explain how a tort claim that arose before the bankruptcy and that was based on non-bankruptcy state law could be a claim “arising in” the bankruptcy case or “arising under” bankruptcy law. Possibly the fact that procedurally it arises as a counterclaim is sufficient to convert a “related” claim into an “arising in” or “arising under” claim. Cf. Langenkamp.)

The Court also rejects the argument that the personal injury tort provision of 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5) deprives the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction to resolve the counterclaim. The Court holds that section 157(b)(5) is not jurisdictional and thus the objection was waived.

Although the statute authorized the Bankruptcy Court to determine the counterclaim, the Court holds that grant violates Article III. The Court rejects the view that the Article III problem was resolved by placing the Bankruptcy Judges in the judicial branch as an “adjunct” to the District Court. The Court focuses on the liberty aspect of Article III and its requirement of judges who are protected by life tenure and salary guarantees. After outlining the extensive jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Judges over matters at law and in equity and their power to issue enforceable orders, the Court states “a court exercising such broad powers is no mere adjunct of anyone.”

The Court then uses the “public rights” doctrine as the test for which matters can be delegated to a non-Article III tribunal. Although Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989), suggested a balancing test that considered both how closely a matter was related to a federal scheme and the degree of District Court supervision (a test that arguably supports the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of a judgment on a compulsory counterclaim), the Court settles on a new test for public rights limited to “cases in which resolution of the claim at issue derives from a federal regulatory scheme, or in which resolution of the claim by an expert government agency is deemed essential to a limited regulatory objective within the agency’s authority.” The state common law tort counterclaim asserted here does not meet that test. Instead, adjudication of this claim “involves the most prototypical exercise of judicial power.”

Interpreted in the most restrictive fashion, this ruling might create serious problems for case administration. In proof of claim matters, the Bankruptcy Court would be limited to proposed findings on most counterclaims, with the District Court entering the final order after de novo review. Query whether the majority’s limited view of “public rights” would prevent the Bankruptcy Judge from entering final judgment in other disputes that involve the non-bankruptcy rights of non-debtor parties. Bankruptcy Courts regularly resolve inter-creditor disputes and resolve disputes regarding the non-bankruptcy rights of parties to the bankruptcy case in contexts other than claim allowance. Whether the Bankruptcy Court’s exercise of this power is constitutional may turn on how broadly the courts interpret the “cases in which resolution of the claim at issue derives from a federal regulatory scheme” prong of the “public rights” test.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Court Could Not Enjoin State Court from Addressing Class Certification Issue

Posted yesterday at the National Law Review by Scott T. Schutte of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP a great overview of  the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling  in Smith v. Bayer Corp.   

In a decision with implications for companies facing class action litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a federal district court, having rejected certification of a proposed class action, could not take the additional step of enjoining a state court from addressing a motion to certify the same class under state law. In an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Court inSmith v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-1205, 564 U.S. ____ (June 16, 2011), held that principles of stare decisis and comity should have governed whether the federal court’s ruling had a controlling or persuasive effect in the later case, and the state court should have had an opportunity to determine the precedential effect (if any) of the federal court ruling.

Facts of Bayer

In Bayer, a plaintiff sued in West Virginia state court alleging that Bayer’s pharmaceutical drug Baycol was defective. After removal to federal court, the plaintiff moved to certify the action as a class action on behalf of all West Virginia purchasers of Baycol. The federal court rejected class certification because proof of injury from Baycol would have required plaintiff-specific inquiries and therefore individual issues of fact predominated over common issues. It then dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on independent grounds.

A different plaintiff, who had been a putative class member in the first action and was represented by the same class counsel in the federal action, moved to certify the same class in West Virginia state court. Bayer sought an injunction from the federal court in the first case, arguing that the court’s rejection of the class bid should bar the plaintiff’s relitigation of the same class certification question in state court. The district court granted the injunction, and the Circuit Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The issues before the Court were (i) the district court’s power to enjoin the later state-court class action to avoid relitigation of the previously decided classcertification determination; and (ii) whether the federal court’s injunction complied with the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which permits a federal court to enjoin a state court action when necessary to “protect or effectuate its judgment.” The Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split concerning the application of the Anti-Injunction Act’s relitigation exception.

The Supreme Court overturned the injunction. It determined that enjoining the state court proceedings under the circumstances of the case was improperly “resorting to heavy artillery.” The Court noted that “[d]eciding whether and how prior litigation has preclusive effect is usually the bailiwick of the second court.” It observed that a federal court may under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act enjoin a state court from relitigating an already decided issue-including whether to certify a case as a class action-when two conditions are met: “First, the issue the federal court decided must be the same as the one presented in the state tribunal. And second, [the party in the later case] must have been a party to the federal suit, or else must fall within one of a few discrete exceptions to the general rule against binding nonparties.” Notably, the Court commented that, in conducting this analysis, “every benefit of the doubt goes to the state court” being allowed to determined what effect the federal court’s prior ruling should be given.

The Court held that neither condition was met in Bayer. The issue of class certification under West Virginia’s Rule 23 (the language of which mirrored Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23) was not “the same as” the issue decided by the federal court because the West Virginia Supreme Court had expressly disapproved of the approach to the “predominance” analysis adopted by federal courts interpreting the federal class action rule. In addition, the Court also held that unnamed persons in a proposed class action do not become parties to the case if the court declines to certify a class. By contrast, the Court affirmed the established rule that “a judgment in a properly entertained class action is binding on class members in any subsequent litigation.”

According to the Court, Bayer’s “strongest argument” centered on a policy concern that, after a class action is disapproved, plaintiff after plaintiff may relitigate the class certification issue in state courts if not enjoined by the original court. The Court suggested that these concerns were ameliorated by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, through which Congress gave defendants a right to remove to federal court any sizable class action involving minimal diversity of citizenship. The Court noted the availability of consolidating certain federal class actions to avoid inconsistent results and offered that the Class Action Fairness Act’s expanded federal jurisdiction should result in greater uniformity among class action decisions and in turn reduce serial relitigation of class action issues.

Implications of Bayer

Bayer exposes defendants to the potential for repetitive class action litigation by plaintiffs in state courts. Bayer does not alter existing standards for class certification, however, and its holding is a limited one: a defendant who has defeated class certification may not invoke the “heavy artillery” of an injunction against future state-court bids for class certification in a case raising the same legal theories unless that future bid is advanced by the same named plaintiff(s) (or a person who falls within one of the few discrete exceptions to the general rule against binding nonparties) and the defendant can establish that state standards for class certification are similar to Federal Rule 23. In this regard, the Court held that “[m]inor variations in the application of what is in essence the same legal standard do not defeat preclusion,” but if the state courts would apply a “significantly different analysis” than the federal court, an injunction will not be upheld. The Anti-Injunction Act analysis from Bayer applies directly only where the enjoining court is a federal court and the second court is a state court.

The Bayer opinion also highlights avenues for companies facing serial class actions to mitigate risk. The Court all but acknowledged that “class actions raise special problems of relitigation.” These relitigation problems in the class action context and beyond will remain after Bayer. But a number of strategic steps can be taken to reduce the burdens, expenses, and risks associated with multiple lawsuits. For example, the enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act provides expanded federal jurisdiction over many class actions and therefore permits enhanced removal opportunities for state court class actions. If subsequent class actions are filed and removed, the Court noted that multidistrict litigation proceedings may be available for coordination of pretrial proceedings to avoid repetitive litigation. Even if transfer and consolidation cannot be effectuated, the Court observed that “we would expect federal courts to apply principles of comity to each other’s class certification decisions when addressing a common dispute.”

Finally, the Court’s treatment of absent class members as nonparties to the class certification question in the first action may have significance to other issues in class actions, including often hotly disputed issues relating to communications with putative class members by the defendant before class certification.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

 

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.: Supreme Court Observations

Posted today at the National Law Review  by Robert Greene Sterne  and Nirav N. Desai of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C  a great recap of today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership et al.

In Microsoft v. i4i, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously (8-0) affirmed the clear and convincing evidence standard for invalidating issued U.S. patents under Section 282 of the Patent Act (1952).  In 2007, i4i sued Microsoft in U.S. District Court for infringement of i4i’s patent. As part of its defense, Microsoft asked for a jury instruction reciting a preponderance of the evidence standard for finding i4i’s patent invalid, rather than the long-standing clear and convincing evidence standard.  The District Court rejected Microsoft’s lower standard of proof, and a jury found that the patent was valid and that Microsoft infringed, awarding i4i a 9 figure damages sum.  Microsoft appealed to Federal Circuit, asserting in particular, that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on the standard of proof for invalidity.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding and Microsoft petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted.

In its argument to the Supreme Court, Microsoft argued that either (1) a defendant in a patent infringement action need only convince the jury that an issued patent is invalid by a preponderance of the evidence standard, or (2) alternatively, that at the very least, the preponderance of the evidence standard should apply to evidence that was never considered by the PTO during examination.  The Supreme Court in its decision rejected both of Microsoft’s arguments.

In its decision, the Court first focused on the language of Section 282, which specifies that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent … shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.”  Microsoft had argued that Federal Circuit precedent establishing a clear and convincing evidence standard was not supported by the 1952 Act because Section 282 did not explicitly set forth that standard.  The Supreme Court noted that, while the statute includes no express articulation of the standard of proof, the statute does use the term “presumed valid,” which has a settled meaning in the common law.  Relying on its long-standing decision in Radio Corporation of America (RCA) v. Radio Eng’g Labs., Inc., 293 U.S. 1 (1934), the Court found that the common law jurisprudence dating back to the 19th century reflects that Microsoft’s proposed preponderance standard of proof “was too ‘dubious’ a basis to deem a patent invalid.”  According to the common law, the Court held, “a defendant raising an invalidity defense bore a ‘heavy burden of persuasion,’ requiring proof of the defense by clear and convincing evidence.”

The Court also noted that the Federal Circuit has interpreted Section 282 to require this clear and convincing evidence standard for nearly 30 years. And while Congress has amended the patent laws several times since the Patent Act was passed, “the evidentiary standard in § 282 has gone untouched.”  The Court concluded that Congress is well aware of the Federal Circuit’s treatment of the statute, but thus far has not amended the statute, and further that “[a]ny re-calibration of the standard of proof remains in [Congress’s] hands.”

The practical implications of the decisions are many.  First and foremost, the decision preserves the status quo, which in turn maintains the strength of U.S. patents and current patent enforcement mechanisms, particularly as they relate to innovation, business certainty, and job creation.  The Court has also sent a clear signal that, in view of well-established jurisprudence, if the standard is to change, it must be done by Congress, as any such change would have a profound ripple effect on the entire patent system.

© 2011 Sterne Kessler

U.S. Supreme Court Establishes State-of-Mind Requirement for Inducing Infringement Liability

As posted in the National Law Review yesterday by R. (Ted) Edward Cruz of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP – a good overview of the knowledge a patent infringement plaintiff needs to prove:

Today (May 31), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6 (2011), holding that to prove inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) a plaintiff must prove that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” The Court also held that this knowledge requirement can be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.”

Morgan Lewis represented SEB in this case. The leader of our U.S. Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation Practice, Ted Cruz, argued the case on February 23. In today’s decision, by an 8-1 vote, our client prevailed.

On the facts of the case, SEB had developed an innovative method to produce household deep fryers and received a U.S. patent for this invention. A foreign competitor, Global-Tech Appliances, purchased one of SEB’s fryers in Hong Kong where it would not have patent markings, reverse-engineered SEB’s fryer, and then copied the SEB fryer’s unique technology. Global-Tech hired a patent attorney to conduct a patent search, but deliberately chose not to tell that attorney that its fryer was a copy of another company’s commercially successful fryer. The attorney did not locate SEB’s patent in its patent search. Global-Tech then sold its fryers to U.S. companies to sell within the United States. SEB sued Global-Tech for patent infringement and inducing infringement, and the jury found for SEB on all counts.

On appeal, Global-Tech challenged the finding on inducing infringement liability due to a lack of evidence of its actual knowledge of SEB’s patent. Section 271(b) provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” Over the last two decades, the Federal Circuit has offered various formulations of what mental-state requirement must be proven to establish liability under § 271(b). On appeal in this case, the Federal Circuit held that the mental-state requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “deliberate indifference of a known risk that a patent exists” and that Global-Tech’s actions constituted such deliberate indifference.

The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s analysis but nonetheless affirmed the judgment. The Court held that inducing infringement liability under § 271(b) requires evidence that the infringer had knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Adopting the argument advanced by SEB, the Court held that this knowledge requirement could be satisfied by evidence of “willful blindness.” After analyzing the record, the Court held that the judgment for SEB could be affirmed based on the evidence of Global-Tech’s willful blindness. The Court focused on Global-Tech’s decision to purchase the fryer to reverse-engineer it overseas (where it would not have U.S. patent markings) and then to deliberately withhold from its attorney the basic information that its fryer was a copy of SEB’s fryer.

This decision clears up an issue of long-standing confusion in the Federal Circuit as to the mental-state requirement of § 271(b). The Court’s explication of the standard should be welcome news to both innovators and holders of patents. The decision prevents frivolous claims of inducing infringement by requiring proof of knowledge of infringement. At the same time, it allows companies to protect their intellectual property rights against those companies that willfully blind themselves to a lawful patent in order to copy a commercially successful product. Corporations hiring attorneys to conduct patent searches should be sure to disclose to their attorneys any products copied or relied upon in developing a new technology.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Prevailing Antitrust Defendants Recover $367,000 in e-Discovery Costs

Posted yesterday at the National Law Review by Eric S. O’Connor  of  Sheppard Mullin – a recent case out of the Western District of PA – Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., where prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded  by the court $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. 

Recently, prevailing antitrust defendants were awarded $367,000 in e-discovery costs incurred by their vendor. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 2011 WL 1748620 (W.D. Pa. May 6, 2011). While the Court labeled the facts as “unique” and that its holding was limited, the Court’s opinion is very thorough and the facts may be familiar to many antitrust defendants.

In today’s age where the costs of e-discovery can run several hundred thousand dollars or more and outside vendors are routinely hired to help, this holding can be used as a shield and a sword. During discovery, a party can alert the other side that aggressive discovery requests and a demand for many electronic search terms is a major factor in awarding costs of e-discovery – if the responding party prevails. And, if a party should prevail, the potential for an award of the costs of e-discovery can be an additional bonus and/or leverage for any post-verdict resolution without appeal.

The facts are simple. Plaintiff Specialty Tires America (STA) brought antitrust claims against Hoosier Racing, its tire supplier competitor, and Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. d/b/a World Racing Group, a motorsports racing sanctioning body. STA claimed that a so-called “single tire rule” by various sanctioning bodies like Dirt Motor Sports, as well as the related exclusive supply contracts between some of these sanctioning bodies and Hoosier violated Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and caused STA in excess of $80 million in damages. See Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F. 3d 57, 62-73 (3d Cir. 2010). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants finding that STA had failed to demonstrate antitrust injury, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 83-84.

The normal rule that “costs — other than attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)) creates a “strong presumption” that all costs authorized for payment will be awarded to the prevailing party, so long as the costs are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the general taxation-of-costs statute. As prevailing parties, the defendants each filed a Bill of Costs in which the majority of amounts requested were e-discovery costs. Plaintiff objected arguing that e-discovery costs were not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).


Section 1920(4) allows recovery of “[f]ees for exemplification and the costs of making copies … necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4). There are two statutory interpretation questions that have divided Courts. First, costs of electronic scanning of documents can be recoverable as “necessary” or unrecoverable as a mere “convenience.”

The other issue takes a few different forms, but focuses on whether the terms “exemplification” and “copying”, which originated in the world of paper, should be limited to physical preparation or rather updated to take into account changing technology and e-discovery. The Court discussed a litany of these cases. Some courts that have applied § 1920(4) to today’s e-discovery demands, have limited exemplification and copying to just the costs for scanning of documents, which is considered merely reproducing paper documents in electronic form, and refused to extend the statute to cover processing records, extracting data, and converting files. Courts are also divided on whether extracting, searching, and storing work by outside vendors are unrecoverable paralegal-like tasks, or whether such costs are recoverable because outside vendors provide highly technical and necessary services in the electronic age and which are not the type of services that paralegals are trained for or are capable of providing.

In this case, because the Court and the parties anticipated that discovery would be in the form of electronically stored information and because plaintiff aggressively pursued e-discovery (e.g., directing 273 discovery requests to one defendant and imposing over 442 search terms), defendants’ use of e-discovery vendors to retrieve and prepare e-discovery documents for production was recoverable as an indispensable part of the discovery process. The Court also found that the vendor’s fees were reasonable, especially because the costs were incurred by defendants when they did not know if they would prevail at trial.

The Court also denied the plaintiff’s request for a Special Master to assess the reasonableness of e-discovery costs incurred by the prevailing defendants as an unnecessary cost and delay.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. 

Implementing Effective Litigation Holds

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Laura Broughton Russell and David L. Woodard of Poyner Spruill LLP – Important things for Employers to Consider about Litigation Holds:

Does your company have an established procedure for issuing timely litigation holds?  Recent court decisions make it clear that employers have a duty to preserve electronically stored information and paper documents they know or should know would be relevant to a current or threatened legal action.  The consequences for failing to do so can be severe.  Events which trigger an employer’s duty to preserve information/documents include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Receiving notice that the employer is a party to a legal or an administrative proceeding, such as a charge of discrimination;
  • Receiving a letter threatening a claim on behalf of an applicant or current or former employee;
  • A verbal demand from an applicant or current or former employee relating to a legal claim;
  • Other “red flags” exist or a “totality of circumstances” indicate a claim is likely to be made by an  applicant or current or former employee.

A litigation hold notice is best made in writing,  It should instruct recipients to preserve and not destroy (or overwrite) electronically stored information and paper documents that are relevant to current or threatened litigation.

Although the litigation hold notice must be tailored to the facts of each particular situation, at a minimum, it should include the following:

  • Name of the matter or individual involved;
  • Warning of the importance of the hold and the consequences for not complying with it;
  • Direction not to alter or destroy information/documents;
  • Reason for the hold – e.g., legal action;
  • Reason the recipient (see below) is getting the hold notice;
  • Types of information included in the hold and the applicable time period.  (Information subject to the hold could include personnel files and other employment related documents, e-mail and other forms of correspondence and electronically stored information.)
  • Instructions for preserving information/documents;
  • Suspension of any routine document retention/destruction policy;

The hold notice should be issued to all employees reasonably likely to have information relevant to a claim – the “key players” in the matter.  There could also be instances in which outside vendors would also need to be issued a hold notice.

The employer’s IT department should help implement litigation holds, particularly with regard to documents housed or stored in e-mail accounts, or on computers, cell phones PDAs, or on flash drives, as well as with regard to taking control of backup tapes and stopping any automatic overwriting of electronic data.

Finally, employers should enforce litigation holds and, if a violation of the hold is discovered, take prompt action to remedy the violation if possible.  Steps also should be taken to ensure no further violations occur, such as taking disciplinary action up to termination.

Litigation hold notices must be tailored to the facts of each case and should be reviewed by counsel knowledgeable in this area.  If you have a question about litigation hold practices, Poyner Spruill attorneys are experienced in minimizing legal risks through the effective use of litigation holds and are available to assist employers with any of their needs.

© 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

Chief Judge Imposes Privilege Waiver Sanctions Against Defendant for Repeated Discovery Misconduct in DL v. District of Columbia

Recently posted at the National Law Review byMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP  an  overview / warning about discovery violations:  

Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sent a clear message to litigants last week: repeated discovery violations will not be tolerated and may subject the violator to harsh sanctions, including waiver of privilege. In his May 9 ruling in DL v. District of Columbia,[1]Judge Lamberth denied defendant District of Columbia’s (District’s) request for reconsideration of his April 7, 2011 order, which imposed privilege waiver sanctions with regard to all of the District’s as-yet unproduced email and ordered the District to produce all such email within one week after the close of trial.

The plaintiffs in this Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act (IDEA) case had been waiting almost six years for trial. Beginning on the first day of trial (April 6, 2011), however, the central issue in the case quickly became the District’s failure to timely meet its discovery obligations when the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that “document production from the District was still flooding into his office,” including the production of “thousands of e-mails just days before trial.” Indeed, the District intended to “continue to produce thousands of e-mails on a ‘rolling’ basis even after the trial concluded.” As the unproduced e-mails were from more than two years prior, no basis existed for such a lengthy delay in production, especially in a case in which discovery had been closed for more than two years. The court found the District’s explanation for its untimely rolling productions of email (which the District described as the result of a “supplemental search” that had been “ongoing for months”) completely unacceptable. The court especially noted the District’s failure to bring its delayed production to the court’s attention at either the pretrial conference or at any number of pretrial proceedings.

Among the District’s numerous discovery violations, the court highlighted the following:

  • Failure to timely produce relevant documents
  • Violation of multiple discovery orders
  • Failure to timely provide a privilege log
  • Failure to inform the court of any delays in production in order to request appropriate extensions

The court may have been more lenient had the District not requested and been granted an extension of its discovery deadlines from June 27, 2008 until October 14, 2008. The District, despite being recently sanctioned for discovery violations, failed to comply with several discovery milestones ordered by the court, including the submission of a privilege log. In addition, the District’s certification that it had completed its production was not only late, but also inaccurate since the District clearly had not yet completed its production. Furthermore, on September 22, 2010, the district court ordered both parties to supplement their discovery responses and document productions up until the date of the trial, an order that the was also violated by the District.

In its ruling, the court emphasized the District’s failure to (a) alert the court to the delayed production of email and (b) seek an appropriate extension.

“If at any point the District realized that it was behind, or for any other reason could not comply with this Court’s Orders, it should have informed the Court of the problem. . . . It could have said something at any of the multiple status conferences held in this case or at the pretrial conference. Instead, the District failed to produce documents for over two years, violated multiple Court Orders in the process, and instead of informing the Court of the situation at any point along the way, it simply sprung the news on the first day of trial.”

Further, the court stated that, absent entering a default judgment in the case, the order granting privilege waiver sanctions and compelling production of all remaining e-mail within one week of trial was the only realistic alternative.Otherwise, the parties would face extremely burdensome delays and increased litigation time and costs, which would also affect the court’s already overloaded trial docket. The court stated state that the District “should not be surprised that its misconduct has caught up with it.”

This case underscores the importance to companies involved in litigation of diligently complying with all discovery deadlines and promptly bringing to the court’s attention any delays in compliance. Failure to do so may result in severe sanctions, including privilege waivers.

[1]. Case No. 1:05-cv-01437-RCL (D.D.C. May 9, 2011). Plaintiffs in this class action suit sued their local school district, the District of Columbia, over the District’s failure to provide them with a free appropriate public education, as required by law.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.