Tag: supreme court

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Be Watching in 2022

The California Supreme Court has been busy in 2021 deciding cases that affect employers from how to pay meal and rest period penalties to when the statute of limitations for a failure to promote runs.

While the state’s high court answered some big questions in this last year, they still have several cases pertaining to employment law awaiting their attention.

Here are the cases employers should be watching in the new year and why.

People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc.

In this case, a complainant filed a timely retaliation complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) claiming immediate termination after complaining about non-payment of wages. Her complaint did not allege any disclosure to a governmental agency, but the retaliatory act of termination upon her direct complaint to her employer. The DLSE undertook an investigation and determined that respondents had violated several Labor Code sections, notably 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”), California’s whistleblower statute. The DLSE notified the parties involved of its determination on December 22, 2015. Respondents were ordered to do several things, including paying the complainant lost wages and civil penalties of $20,000 each for violations of sections 1102.5 and 98.6. Respondents never complied.

On October 17, 2017, the Labor Commissioner filed an enforcement action against Respondents under the authority of section 98.7, subdivision (c)(1)5, alleging violations of these statutory provisions. Eventually, through a lack of response by the employer-defendant, the Labor Commissioner sought to take a default judgment.

The trial court, however, determined that the Labor Commissioner had not stated a claim under section 1102.5, because the complainant had not approached a governmental agency until after her termination. The trial court found that retaliation under the statute required the complainant to have been terminated as a result of disclosure to a governmental agency, which was not alleged. The trial court also found insufficient evidence for the claimant’s unpaid wages, and that the penalties under Section 98.6 were not appropriate.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, but nevertheless affirmed the denial of Section 1102.5 claim as it found the after-termination complaint to be defective. It also reversed as to the penalties awarded under Section 98.6 and remanded that portion of the judgment.

The question before the California Supreme Court is limited to whether Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), which protects an employee from retaliation for disclosing unlawful activity, applies when the information is already known to that person or agency.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

Depending on the direction the California Supreme Court takes, its holding will affect the burden on employers defending against whistleblower claims – especially those arising out of allegations that an employee told an employer or agency information that the employer or agency was already aware of.

Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Center

FlexCare, LLC (“FlexCare”), a temporary staffing agency, assigned Plaintiff to work as a nurse at Eisenhower Medical Center (“Eisenhower”). Plaintiff alleged that during her employment at Eisenhower, FlexCare and Eisenhower failed to ensure she received the required meal and rest periods, wages for certain periods she worked, and overtime wages. She then filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of FlexCare employees assigned to hospitals throughout California. Plaintiff’s claims were based solely on her work on assignment to Eisenhower. FlexCare settled with the class and plaintiff executed a release of claims. The trial court entered a judgment incorporating the settlement agreement.

A year later, Plaintiff brought a second class action suit against Eisenhower, who had not been named in the previous lawsuit, alleging the same labor law violations. FlexCare intervened in the action asserting Plaintiff could not bring the separate lawsuit against Eisenhower because she had settled her claims in the prior class action.

The trial court held a limited trial on the issue of the propriety of the lawsuit and ruled that Eisenhower was not a released party under the settlement agreement. Accordingly, Eisenhower could not avail itself of the doctrine of res judicata because the hospital was neither a party to the prior litigation nor in privity with FlexCare. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case could affect staffing agency employers who may want to utilize broad releases if their “clients” are not also named to avoid duplicative litigation – for which they may have to pay twice – through indemnity clauses.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

This case will explore whether the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 (“Section 1102.6”) replaces the McDonnell Douglas test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5.

In this case, Defendant was a manufacturer of paint, stains, caulks, and other products. Plaintiff Lawson (“Lawson”) was a territory manager whose duties included merchandising and claims that he was directed by his supervisor to handle a product in a way that fraudulently removed a slow-selling product from its inventory. Lawson told his supervisor he would not do this, then reported the directive to the company’s ethics hotline on two separate occasions. The second report to the ethics hotline resulted in an investigation. During this time, Lawson received poor ratings for his work, was placed on a performance improvement plan, and eventually, Defendant terminated his employment.

Lawson then filed a complaint against the company in the United States District Court, alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower.

The trial court applied the McDonnell Douglas test, which employs burden-shifting between the plaintiff and the employer. This test originated in the context of Title VII, the federal statute governing workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The trial court concluded that Lawson failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact regarding pretext and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, Lawson argued to the 9th Circuit that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6. Section 1102.6 states that once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliation against the employee, the employer’s burden of proof is to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons.

In its question to the California Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit noted that application of the McDonnell Douglas test to whistleblower claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 “seems to ignore [a] critical intervening statutory amendment” by which the California legislature established the evidentiary burdens of the parties participating in a civil action or administrative hearing involving a violation of the statute. Though this statement by the Circuit seems like a decision, the 9th Circuit pointed out three published California appellate court decisions that expressly applied McDonnell Douglas after the amendment.

This contradiction between California’s statute and the court rulings is the root of the 9th Circuit’s question.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

If the California Supreme Court rules that the evidentiary requirement under Section 1102.6 applies, disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims prior to trial will become extremely difficult due to the high clear and convincing evidentiary standard imposed on the employer.

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

This case involves a class of security guards who alleged meal break violations and sought premium wages, waiting time penalties, inaccurate pay stub penalties, and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid premium wages for meal period violations did not entitle employees to pay stub penalties or waiting time penalties.

Why Employers Should Watch This Case

This case will resolve a long-standing debate on whether waiting time penalties are recoverable for meal and rest period violations. If the California Supreme Court disagrees with the lower courts, it will increase potential penalties for California meal and rest period violations, as violations could be compounded by alleged pay stub penalties and waiting time penalties.

Article By Leonora M. Schloss and Karen Luh of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Before the Supreme Court…December 9, 2021

The Supreme Court placed two Indian law cases on its docket for the October 2021 term.

In Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (20-493), the Supreme Court will determine whether legislation that restored federal recognition to two Tribes permits the State of Texas to regulate gaming activities on the Tribes’ land.  The restoration legislation contained a provision stating that “[a]ll gaming activities which are prohibited by [Texas] are hereby prohibited on the reservation[.]”  Because Texas regulates bingo but does not prohibit it, the Tribe asserts that it therefore retains full authority to set the terms of its bingo games and need not comply with Texas’ regulations.  Texas argues that the Tribe must submit to Texas’ regulations.  The Fifth Circuit sided with Texas, holding that Texas’ regulations became surrogate federal law under the restoration legislation.  The federal government filed a brief supporting the Tribe and urging the Supreme Court to take the case.  The case will directly affect the two Tribes subject to the restoration legislation, but there may be broader implications depending on whether the Supreme Court accepts or rejects the idea that state regulations may, under certain circumstances, become surrogate federal law that Tribes must follow.

In Denezpi v. United States (20-7622), the Supreme Court will decide whether a Tribal member convicted for assaulting another Tribal member on trust land in a “CFR Court” can later be tried for the same conduct in U.S. District Court.  The defendant was charged with serious offenses in the Court of Indian Offenses of the Ute Mountain Ute Agency.  Unlike a Tribal court, Courts of Indian Offenses (or “CFR Courts”—so called because they are authorized by the Code of Federal Regulations) are created by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer criminal justice for Tribes lacking their own courts.  The CFR Courts may prosecute violations of Tribal ordinances and other offenses listed in the regulations.  The defendant was charged with three offenses in the CFR Court and ultimately pled guilty to one count and received a 140-day sentence.  Six months later, the defendant was indicted in U.S. District Court.  The defendant asserted his prosecution was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The lower federal courts, however, concluded that the CFR Court was not exercising the sovereignty of the United States, but was instead exercising the sovereign powers of the Ute Mountain Tribe.  Under the long-established “dual sovereignty” doctrine, the federal government may prosecute an American Indian after a Tribal prosecution for the same act.  The same rule generally permits the federal government to charge an individual with a federal crime even after that person has been tried for the same conduct in state court.  The key question for the Supreme Court to decide is: whose sovereignty is the CFR Court exercising?  The answer will affect the five existing CFR Courts that serve more than a dozen Tribes.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear an appeal in Haaland v. Brackeen.  In that case the Fifth Circuit held several provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) to be unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it will likely become the most significant Indian law case of the term.

This article was written by Patrick Daugherty of Van Ness Feldman law firm. For more articles on tribal law, please click here.

Justice Thomas Criticizes Federal Marijuana Policy, Questions Whether Prohibition Remains Necessary or Proper

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has issued an unexpected statement questioning whether the federal government’s continuing prohibition on marijuana is necessary or proper. His statement was made in conjunction with the denial of a writ of certiorari in the matter of Standing Akimbo LLC v. United States, which asked the court to address whether a medical marijuana dispensary could properly deduct ordinary business expenses in violation of section 280E of the federal tax code.

In his statement, Justice Thomas bluntly acknowledges that the reasoning behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich ‒ which held that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce authorizes it to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana ‒ has been “greatly undermined” by federal policies over the past 16 years. He characterized the federal government’s current approach as a contradictory and unstable “half-in, the half-out regime” that “strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”

Examples of the federal government’s mixed signals include the 2013 Cole Memorandum issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Congress’s prohibition in place since 2015 that restricts the DOJ from spending funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical marijuana laws. These actions by the federal government have “broad ramifications” according to Justice Thomas, given that 36 states allow medical marijuana use and 18 of those states also allow adult use of cannabis.

Behind the Statement

In this environment, Justice Thomas rhetorically asks whether it is now reasonable for an ordinary person to think that the federal government “has retreated from its once absolute ban on marijuana,” and for cannabis business owners to think “that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.” He points out, however, that “legality under state law and the absence of federal criminal enforcement do not ensure equal treatment.”

Justice Thomas clearly is bothered by the strict enforcement of the federal tax code to the detriment of state-legal businesses and the simultaneous absence of federal enforcement in areas such as cultivation and distribution of marijuana that is legal under state law. He describes the federal government’s willingness to look the other way as “more episodic than coherent.” Justice Thomas identifies other harmful results caused by this schizophrenic federal approach, including federal prohibitions on financial institutions providing services to the cannabis industry, which has resulted in significant public safety issues, and civil lawsuits brought against individuals and businesses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Justice Thomas concludes by noting that the federal government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the uniform policy of prohibition upon which a closely divided Supreme Court based its decision in Raich 16 years ago. He warns that by allowing states to act as laboratories that try novel social and economic experiments, the federal government may no longer have authority to intrude on the states’ core police powers. “A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach.”

Marijuana Policy

Though Justice Thomas’ statement has no formal precedential value, it nevertheless represents the most explicit statement yet from a sitting – and conservative – Supreme Court Justice that questions the rationality of current federal marijuana policy. For court watchers, this represents a seismic shift on marijuana policy within the highest court of the land. Justice Thomas’s bold defense of federalism also should prove influential to members of the other branches of government who remain cautious on broad marijuana reform.

© 2021 Wilson Elser
For more articles on marijuana policies, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, Drug section.

Supreme Court Offers Clarification on Protection for Off Campus Speech: Implications for School Boards & First Amendment

On June 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Mahanoy Area School District violated the First Amendment rights of Brandi Levy, a high school student who went to Snapchat to voice her frustrations when she didn’t make the varsity school cheerleading team.

Ms. Levy posted on her personal Snapchat a few photos showing the middle finger, one with the caption, “F*** school f*** softball f*** cheer f*** everything,” and the other saying, “Love how me and [another student] get told we have another year of jv before we make varsity but tha[t] doesn’t matter to anyone else.” which was visible to about 250 people at the time, many of whom were fellow students.  Snapchat messages, by design are meant to go away not long after they are sent.

In this circumstance, at least one other student took a screenshot of the post(s) and shared it with her mother, who was also a coach, to express concern, the school district decided Ms. Levy violated school and team rules, and was ultimately suspended from the junior varsity cheer squad for the remainder of the year.

Ms. Levy and her parents sued Mahanoy School District (“School District”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, stating that her suspension violated the First Amendment, and Mahanoy’s team and school rules were overbroad and unconstitutionally vague. The School District argued that they were within their rights to suspend Ms. Levy because of the previous Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which ultimately held that school officials could regulate speech that would disrupt the work and discipline of the school.

Both the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Ms. Levy, and the Mahanoy School District filed a petition for certiorari, asking whether Tinker standard did or did not apply to this case.

The Supreme Court needed to decide whether the First Amendment prohibits public schools from regulating off-campus speech, and whether the Third Circuit correctly held that the school violated Ms. Levy’s first amendment rights. It was an 8 to 1 decision, with Justice Stephen Breyer drafting the majority opinion and Justice Clarence Thomas authoring the dissenting opinion.

The Supreme Court previously outlined three instances where a school may regulate student speech: (1) incident, lewd or vulgar speech uttered during a school assembly on school grounds, (2) speech uttered during a class trip that references illicit drug use, and (3) speech that others may perceive as bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school, such as in a school newspaper.

Ms. Levy’s words of criticism were outside of school hours and not on school property, and although they were vulgar, they were not threatening in nature, so the Supreme Court held the School District did not have the right to punish Ms. Levy and she was not outside of her First Amendment rights.

What are the Free Speech Implications?

While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms. Levy in this case, the ruling does not necessarily protect all off-campus speech. For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court said schools may regulate speech that disrupts the order of the school or infringes on others’ rights. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas said schools have the authority to regulate speech off-campus when it harms the school and threatens its faculty.

The Court said exceptions to the ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. would be limited, and would have to be worked out in future cases. Justice Samuel Alito said in his concurring opinion that “the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory.”

According to previous precedent, students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they set foot on school grounds.

“I think this result is foreseeable insofar as the Court seemed unlikely during oral argument to adopt the Third Circuit’s broad view that schools can’t regulate off-campus speech at all, but they also seemed to think the school had overreached here,” said Gautam Hans, assistant clinical professor of law and director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt University Law School in a statement to the National Law Review.

The Court outlined three facets that distinguish schools’ efforts to regulate off-campus speech. First, it’s the parents’ responsibility to regulate students’ speech off campus. Additionally, if a student is subjected to speech regulations on and off campus, then their speech is regulated 24 hours a day.

“That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all,” per Justice Breyer writing for the majority. Lastly, the Court said schools are America’s “nurseries of democracy,” and therefore have an interest in protecting students’ unpopular opinions.

“Justice Breyer’s adoption of a flexible standard for when schools can regulate speech off-campus demonstrates the real challenges for schools and the need to balance competing interests. I suspect this will get litigated a fair amount in the coming years as courts try to figure out what to do with the standard articulated here,” Professor Hans said.

The Court specifically pointed out that in this case, Ms. Levy’s Snapchats were sent outside of school hours on her own time and were not sent on school grounds. She also did not identify the school itself in the posts, and did not target any person in particular. Therefore, the school did not have the right to suspend her.

“Likewise, there is little to suggest a substantial interference in, or disruption of, the school’s efforts to maintain cohesion on the school cheerleading squad,” the Court said.

What are the Implications for School Boards & Administrators?

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas criticized the Court’s majority opinion for being too vague, and for its lack of guidance to schools on how to discipline students moving forward.

“Because the Supreme Court declined to set forth a uniform rule and give leeway to schools to regulate off-campus speech, the lower courts will further shape the landscape of First Amendment application to student speech,” per  Christine V. Hamiel, Chair of the School Law Section at von Briesen & Roper. “School boards and administration must be mindful that such further interpretation will continue to lay the foundation for what action a school may take with respect to student off-campus speech.”

Due to the ruling’s lack of uniformity, school administrators will have to think about the specific characteristics of off-campus speech when deciding whether or not to respond with disciplinary action.

“While acknowledging that there can be circumstances where off-campus speech may be regulated, it is clear from the decision that the characteristics of off-campus speech that differentiate it from speech at school or at a school function will make it more difficult to pass constitutional muster when dealing with off-campus speech,” per  Robert Burns, Chair of the School and Higher Education Team at Davis Kuelthau. “School administrators will have to analyze such issues carefully when contemplating responding to off-campus speech.”

Moving forward, schools will have to consider multiple factors of the impact of students’ speech when determining if and how to respond.

“The Supreme Court recognized that there can be circumstances where off-campus speech implicates the regulatory interests of schools,” Mr. Burns said.  “It concluded that the facts in Mahanoy did not rise to that level, but going forward school districts are in a position to respond to such speech if they conclude it is creating a substantial disruption of learning or threatening the protection of the school population.”

Should a school decide to take action against a student for off-campus speech, they must also determine the circumstances around the student’s speech.

“Schools must carefully consider each situation and the unique circumstances of each situation on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration three key features: the authority a school has over the off-campus student; the content of the speech at the time it is made (given that off-campus regulation opens the door to school regulation of all student speech); and a school’s responsibility in maintaining a free ‘marketplace of ideas,’” Ms. Hamiel said.

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC

ARTICLE BY Rachel Popa and Hanna Taylor of
The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC
For more articles on the Supreme Court, visit the NLRLitigation / Trial Practice section.

Countdown to TransUnion—How Will SCOTUS Come Out on Key Standing Issues for Data Privacy Litigations?

Data privacy litigators have their eye on the Supreme Court going into the end of the month as we wait for the Court’s opinion in Ramirez v. TransUnion.  And when the decision is issued, CPW will be there in real time to fill you in.  In the meantime, below is a refresher of the facts and issues raised in Ramirez, and why it is a must-watch decision for the end of the Supreme Court’s current term.

As readers of CPW already know, Article III limits federal court jurisdiction to actual “cases or controversies.”  U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2.  The Supreme Court has held that standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.”  This includes the following three elements, which constitute the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing”:

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized … and (b) actual or imminent not conjectural or hypothetical … Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of … Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

As relevant for Ramirez, in 2016, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540.  In Spokeo, the Court affirmed that a plaintiff cannot “allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.”  (emphasis added).  The Supreme Court’s analysis emphasized that “[a] ‘concrete’ injury must be ‘de facto’; that is, it must actually exist.”  Id. (emphasis in original).

Which brings us to Ramirez.  The plaintiff alleged that he had difficulty obtaining credit, was embarrassed in front of family members, and canceled a vacation after a car dealer received a credit report indicating that his name matched a name on a government “terrorist list” of persons with whom U.S. businesses may not transact.  In response, Ramirez filed a class action alleging three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), two concerning the mode of providing consumers with a copy of their own credit file and one concerning the procedural requirements for furnishing an accurate credit report.

Ramirez sought to represent a class of thousands of individuals, the vast majority of whom (more than 75%) never had a credit report disseminated to any third party, let alone suffered a denial of credit or other injury anything like what he experienced.  The trial court nonetheless let the class proceed on the theory that the absent class members all suffered an Article III injury and that the vast differences between the experiences of the named plaintiff and the class he purported to represent were immaterial.  Ramirez ultimately obtained a multi-million dollar jury verdict against the credit reporting agency TransUnion for falsely flagging him and more than 8,100 other people as terrorists.

The Supreme Court granted cert for the question: “Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.”  (emphasis added).  TransUnion argued in its opening brief that Ramirez’s class definition includes individuals who suffered no injury because they never had a credit report disseminated to a third party with incorrect or misleading information.  TransUnion further asserted that simply alleging an FCRA violation and claiming statutory damages does not itself confer Article III standing.

At oral argument earlier this year, several members of the Court expressed skepticism about Ramirez’s standing argument if carried to its logical conclusion.  [For Kristin Bryan’s real time coverage of that oral argument, check it out here].  However, at this point it is an open-ended question as to whether the Court will rule in a way that curtails the availability of Article III standing in data privacy litigations going forward.  Suffice to say, depending on how the Court rules, the case could have a major impact on litigations brought under various federal and state data privacy statutes (not only the FCRA but also the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, among others) and for data event litigations where Article III standing is a frequently litigated issue.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on SCOTUS, visit the NLRLitigation / Trial Practice section.

Justice Ginsberg’s Multi-Generational Impact

I knew Justice Ginsburg had been seriously ill, so I shouldn’t have been surprised when I heard the news of her passing. But it was still a big shock, and tears started falling. I thought to myself, “I don’t even personally know her—why am I crying?” It was because of all that she represented. She was truly inspirational. She had a tough life—losing her mother at a young age and trying to get her foot in the door and succeed in a male-dominated profession, not to mention numerous serious health issues. Yet she persevered, and she became a “first” in so many ways, even in death—being the first woman and first Jewish American to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol.

Reading about her life has been fascinating, but two parts I especially enjoyed were her sense of humor and her friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The two justices were on opposite ends of the law but close friends. I love the picture of the two of them in India on an elephant. She was behind him, and when asked why she, an advocate of women’s rights, would agree to sit behind a man, she explained that it was for weight distribution purposes! It also just goes to show that you can be on polar opposite ends of important and often contentious issues, but still be respectful and mindful of others and their opinions.

Justice Ginsburg’s cachet was appealing to multiple generations—young, old, and everyone in between. I was surprised that even my 17-year-old twins knew of her and something about her life even if only because of “Notorious RBG” mania! That’s something special that not many public personas are able to achieve. She fought for equality and opened doors for the rest of us so that we could also succeed in professions previously dominated by men. Not only have I managed to succeed as an attorney and working mother because women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way, but I know that my daughter will have fewer challenges as a result. For that, I am so grateful to Justice Ginsburg, and she will be missed so very much.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more articles on RBG, visit the National Law Review Litigation / Trial Practice section.

SAS Indirectly Strengthens the Impact of Estoppel

The Supreme Court decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu[i]will likely strengthen a patent owner’s ability to argue in favor of estoppel and keep a petitioner from getting multiple bites at the invalidity apple in parallel PTAB and district court proceedings. At first glance the Supreme Court’s recent decision appears to be another setback to patent owners. Instead of quickly defeating post grant challenges to at least some challenged claims pursuant to a denial of institution, patent owners will now have to fight petitions even if the Board finds merit with only a single ground challenging patentability. Upon closer examination, however, SAS’s implications for estoppel are favorable and may even resolve a split concerning the scope of estoppel.

The Supreme Court Directive in SAS

SAS addressed the PTAB’s “partial institution” policy, under which the PTAB claimed the power to institute an IPR with respect to only some of the claims challenged in a petition. In SAS, the Supreme Court rejected that policy. The Court explained that if the PTAB decides to institute an IPR, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) provides that PTAB “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner.” Emphasizing the statute’s use of the phrase “any patent claim,” the Court held that PTAB cannot pick and choose which claims to address, but must instead take the petition as it finds it.[ii] The Court found further support for its interpretation in the structure of the inter partes review process “in which it’s the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceeding.”[iii]

The Split on Estoppel

The partial institution policy that SAS rejected has created a split in the interpretation of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). Section 315(e)(2) provides that “[t]he petitioner in an inter partes review . . . that results in a final written decision under section 318(a) . . . may not assert . . . in a civil action . . . that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” Congress intended this provision to preclude the same party from re-litigating invalidity in the district court once it had chosen to do so through an IPR. As then-Director of the PTO David Kappos testified, the “estoppel provisions mean that your patent is largely unchallengeable by the same party.”[iv] Similarly, Senator Grassley stated that IPR review “will completely substitute for at least the patents-and-printed-publications portion of the civil litigation.”[v]

Notwithstanding the apparently broad estoppel envisioned by Congress, some courts have interpreted § 315(e) more narrowly. For example, in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit explained that where PTAB partially instituted an IPR, the petitioner was not estopped from raising a ground in district court that it had included in its IPR petition but on which PTAB did not institute. The court reasoned that the non-instituted ground was not raised “during th[e] inter partes review.”[vi] Similarly, in HP Inc. v. MPHJ Technology Investment, LLC, the Federal Circuit explained that “noninstituted grounds do not become a part of the IPR,” and “[a]ccordingly, the noninstituted grounds were not raised and, as review was denied, could not be raised in the IPR.” The court therefore held that “the estoppel provisions of § 315(e)(1) do not apply.”[vii] Other courts have followed suit and even extended that holding.[viii]

A broader interpretation of estoppel tracks what many believe to be the statutory intent, however, as a party should not get two bites at the apple and be able to seek review at both the PTAB and in the district court. Adopting this view, the court in Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. cabined Shaw and HP to their facts, holding that they “exempt an IPR petitioner from § 315(e)’s estoppel provision only if the PTAB precludes the petitioner from raising a ground during the IPR proceeding for purely procedural reasons.”[ix] Thus, the court held that § 315(e) estopped the petitioner from asserting any ground that (1) was included in PTAB’s final written decision, (2) was not instituted for non-procedural reasons, or (3) was not included in the petition.[x] Any other decision would result in needlessly protracted litigation as petitioners would re-litigate arguments similar to those that it had already lost or strategically chose not to include in a petition.[xi] The court in Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Products LLCtook a similar view with respect to non-petitioned grounds, holding that estoppel applies “to grounds not asserted in the IPR petition, so long as they are based on prior art that could have been found by a skilled searcher’s diligent search.”[xii]

SAS Strengthens Patent Owners’ Estoppel Arguments Because a Petitioner is Deemed to be the “Master of its Complaint”

While SAS had nothing to do with estoppel on its face, much of the disagreement regarding the scope of estoppel arose out of the PTAB’s partial institution policy and the effect of estoppel on non-instituted claims. Because the PTAB no longer has discretion as to partial institution, courts will no longer have to struggle with whether a petitioner is estopped from raising non-instituted grounds for unpatentability in a subsequent or parallel district court proceeding. While a few open issues remain, the patent owner will still be able to argue that SAS supports the idea that petitioners should only get one opportunity to challenge patentability—either at the PTAB or before a jury. The Supreme Court directive from SAS, coupled with recent guidance from the PTAB, suggests that the divide between the broad (Biscotti and Douglas Dynamics) and narrow (Shaw and HP) interpretations of estoppel—at least with respect to pre-institution decisions from the PTAB—may be merging.

Moreover, while SAS does not explicitly resolve whether a petitioner is estopped from arguing non-petitionedclaims in a parallel district court case, the premise behind the Supreme Court’s decision—that the petitioner is the master of its own petition—suggests that estoppel should apply. Some commentators have predicted that because PTAB must now choose between full institution and full denial, “petitioners [will] have an incentive to focus their petitions even further—when choosing claims to challenge, grounds to assert, and prior art to cite—in order to ensure that the likelihood of full institution is greater than the likelihood of full denial.”[xiii] But filing a targeted (and therefore stronger) petition may run the risk of estoppel on any non-petitioned claim. As Biscotti and Douglas Dynamics indicate, petitioners should not be permitted to hold arguments in reserve in case of an unfavorable result at the PTAB. Moreover, SAS supports Biscotti’s and Douglas Dynamic’s interpretation of the meaning of “during” the IPR. While Shaw characterized an IPR as not beginning until institution,[xiv]SAS depicts post grant review as a single process that begins with petitioner defining the scope of the proceeding in its petition.[xv]Applying estoppel to non-petitioned claims would not be inconsistent with a courts’ concern “that estoppel applies only to those arguments, or potential arguments, that received (or reasonably could have received) proper judicial attention.”[xvi]

 Further, SAS will still enable patent owners to rely on the same line of cases to argue for procedural estoppel. Before SAS, the PTAB frequently denied institution in view of procedural deficiencies.[xvii] Now, however, the PTAB will be faced with either denying institution for failure to comply with PTAB rules or allowing institution on all grounds even where some of the challenges are procedurally improper. For example, petitioners could present a single procedurally proper argument to open the door to review and evade page limit requirements by packing the remainder of the petition with grounds that must also be instituted under SAS but that are supported only by improper incorporations by reference.[xviii] While denying institution because of procedural failings could preclude the petitioner from filing another (procedurally proper) petition making the same arguments,[xix] the petitioner, as “master of its complaint,” could have drafted its petition correctly from the start.[xx] In short, the petitioner’s failure to follow the rules should not justify a second bite at the validity apple.

 Finally, pending petitions subject to partial institution could have the same consequences depending on the action of the petitioner post-SAS. PTAB guidance indicates that in such cases, “the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.”[xxi] If a petitioner fails to seek supplemental institution or fails to appeal the PTAB’s refusal to supplement, estoppel could apply. While some courts might continue following Shaw and HP by holding that non-instituted claims were not raised “during” the IPR, petitioner “could have raised” those claims and arguments “during” the IPR—even under Shaw’s interpretation—given SAS’s holding because the petitioner should have sought to remedy the non-institution.

The Takeaway

While not obvious at first glance, SAS follows recent decisions like General Plastics that tend to protect patent owners’ rights. While the focus of SAS was on institution and the scope of institution, the Court has armed patent owners with another weapon with which they can challenge serial review of the same patent on the same grounds in multiple petitions and district court proceedings.

[i] No. 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018).

[ii] Id., slip op. at 1, 4-5.

[iii] Id., slip op. at 12.

[iv] Hr’g on H.R. 1249 Before the Subcomm. on Intell. Prop., Competition and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of David Kappos, Dir., USPTO) (“Those estoppel provisions mean that your patent is largely unchallengeable by the same party.”)

[v] 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-94 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Grassley) (claiming that the estoppel provision “ensures that if aninter partes review is instituted while litigation is pending, that review will completely substitute for at least the patents-and-printed-publications portion of the civil litigation”).

[vi] 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)).

[vii] 817 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

[ See, e.g., Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7728, at *8-10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017); Illumina, Inc. v. Qiagen N.V., 207 F. Supp. 3d 1081, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2016).viii]

[ix] 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144164, at *21-22 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017).

[x] Id. at *22.

[xi] Id. at *17-18, *20-21.

[xii] 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58773, at *15.

[xiii] Saurabh Vishnubhakat, First Steps After SAS Institute, Patently-O (Apr. 27, 2018), https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/04/first-steps-institute.html

[xiv] 817 F.3d at 1300.

[xv] Slip op. at 6, 9.

[xvi] Verinata, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7728, at *10.

[xvii] See, e.g., Shenzhen Huiding Technology Co., Ltd. v. Synaptics Incorporated, IPR2015-01741, Paper 8 at 29-31 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2015) (partially denying institution due to improper incorporation by reference); Bomtech Elec., Co. Ltd. v. Medium-Tech Medizingeräte GmbH, Case No. IPR2014-00138, Paper No. 8 at 32-33 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014) (same).

[xviii] See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).

[xix] General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017).

[xx] Id.

[xxi] Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (Apr. 26, 2018) (emphasis added). 

 

© McKool Smith
This post was written by Scott W. Hejny and Chelsea Priest of McKool Smith.

The Supreme Court Enters the Digital Age

Electronic filing is coming to the U.S. Supreme Court! Effective November 13, 2017, amendments to the Supreme Court’s rules take effect that require represented parties (and their amici) to submit petitions, briefs, and most other filings through the Court’s electronic filing system. The Rules explain that the new e-filing requirements are “[i]n addition to the filing requirements” already set forth in the Rules. Accordingly, parties and their amici will still be required to submit forty copies of their briefs on paper in booklet form, and they now must additionally submit one paper copy on 8.5 x 11 inch paper (in case the Clerk’s office needs to scan the brief for any reason). The paper submission remains the “official filing” for purposes of determining timeliness, but e-filing is supposed to occur “contemporaneously” with the paper filing. Pro se parties will continue to file submissions exclusively on paper; those submissions will be scanned by the Clerk’s office and posted on the Court’s web site.

Attorneys practicing before the Supreme Court will be required to register for an account on the Court’s electronic filing system. The Court warns that it could take two days for a new account to be approved, so attorneys should register well in advance of a filing deadline. Attorneys of record will also now be required to file notices of appearance using the Court’s e-filing system. Under the previous regime, the submission of a brief with an attorney’s information constituted a notice of appearance. Now, an attorney need not file a notice of appearance to submit a case-initiating document, such as a cert petition, but must make an appearance before filing any other document.

While the advent of e-filing creates a few new procedural hurdles, it also presents some obvious benefits to litigators. Primarily, all documents e-filed with the Court will be made available to the public free of charge, which will make it easier to access briefs and petitions filed in other cases. Moreover, counsel who enter an appearance will receive immediate notifications of any activity in the case. Under the old system, a party would not learn of an adversary’s filing until it arrived on paper by courier sometimes three days later, unless opposing counsel was courteous and emailed a courtesy copy.

E-filed documents will be posted immediately to the Supreme Court’s web site. (The lone exception is a document that commences a new case, which will first be reviewed by the Clerk’s office and the case assigned a number before the document becomes available to the public). Accordingly, the Court has promulgated new rules and guidelines to ensure that confidential information does not accidentally become public. Specifically, new Rule 34.6 incorporates the privacy protections found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in most cases. Moreover, documents containing material under seal must not be submitted electronically but only in paper form.  (This also holds true also for redacted forms of briefs submitted for the public record).

Given the Supreme Court’s arcane procedural rules, Proskauer’s Appellate Department recommends that any party or amicus practicing before the Court use an appellate printer to assist with filings. Printers are typically well-versed in the Court’s procedural minutiae and will be able to help you navigate the Court’s new e-filing process.

This post was written by John E Roberts of Proskauer Rose LLP., © 2017
For more legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

The Supreme Court Says “Game Over” to Crafty Gamers’ Attempt to Circumvent Class Certification Appeals

The Xbox 360 is designed for gaming. Appellate litigation, gamers learned, is not. On behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Xbox 360, a group of gamers brought suit alleging a defect with the consoles. After the district court struck the class allegations, plaintiffs sought permission to appeal under Rule 23(f), which the Ninth Circuit denied. Rather than proceeding in litigation to final judgment, plaintiffs instead voluntarily dismissed their claims, with prejudice, while reserving a right to appeal the order striking class allegations. Plaintiffs then appealed the order under Section 1291. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction and thus the case was still “sufficiently adverse” to be heard under §1291. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether courts of appeals “have jurisdiction under §1291 and Article III . . . to review an order denying class certification (or, as here, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.” Writing for the majority in Baker, Justice Ginsburg reasoned that permitting plaintiffs’ back door to the appellate courts to remain open would defeat the even-handedness codified as part of the final judgment rule under §1291 and in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For similar reasons, Justice Ginsburg wrote, the Court previously rejected the judicially-created “death-knell doctrine”—under which an appellate court could review an order refusing to certify a class when the rejection of class certification “sounded the ‘death knell’ of the action”—because it served only to favor the plaintiffs. Describing plaintiffs’ circumvention tactic as a “voluntary dismissal device,” the Court held that permitting only plaintiffs to immediately appeal adverse class certification orders would be manifestly unfair and upset the balance between the parties. Indeed, as the Court noted, “the ‘class issue’ may be just as important to defendants . . . for an order granting certification . . . may force a defendant to settle rather than . . . run the risk of potentially ruinous liability.” Yet plaintiffs’ tactic would confer no right to immediate appeal on defendants. Moreover, the Court held, plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal tactic would “undercut[] Rule 23(f)’s discretionary regime,” which states that interlocutory appeals of grants or denials of class certification may be permitted by a federal court of appeals, but do not create an obligation on the part of Article III courts. The primary drafters of this rule believed that creating a right to interlocutory appeal could be abused, and instead granted such a decision “to the sole discretion of the court of appeals.” Plaintiffs’ maneuver to manufacture appellate jurisdiction would subvert this discretion by impermissibly “transform[ing] a tentative interlocutory order . . . into a final judgment claims with prejudice—subject, no less, to the right to ‘revive’ those claims if the denial of class certifi­cation is reversed on appeal.” To embrace plaintiffs’ reasoning would render “Congress’ final decision rule . . . a pretty puny one.” The majority concluded that “Congress chose the rulemaking process to settle the matter, and the rulemakers did so by adopting Rule 23(f )’s evenhanded prescription. It is not the prerogative of litigants or federal courts to disturb that settlement.” Taking a more narrow view, in his concurrence, Justice Thomas wrote that though he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of §1291—because “[w]hether a dismissal with prejudice is ‘final’ depends on the meaning of §1291, not Rule 23(f )”—plaintiffs nevertheless could not appeal because the court lacked Article III jurisdiction. By voluntarily dismissing their claims, “the plaintiffs asked the District Court to dismiss their claims, they consented to the judgment against them and disavowed any right to relief from Microsoft,” including their right to appeal the order on class certification. Baker serves as an important reminder to litigants to consider both the purpose and intent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which take an even-handed approach. The downstream effects of an alternative ruling would have been significant, as defendants could face undue and increased pressure to settle potentially meritless cases rather than risk incurring the large expense of litigating a judicially-created, one-sided appellate process.  There is no appellate “cheat code” available only to plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court has helped ensure that one of the most seminal moments in class litigation remains a fair game.

This post was contributed by Stephen R. Chuk of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Bring on the Bad Word Brands? What Supreme Court’s Decision in Matal v. Tam Means for Trademark Owners

The Supreme Court’s June 19, 2017 decision in the Matal v. Tam case has been burning-up the news wires all week. The decision struck down a 70-year-old ban on federally registering disparaging trademarks, finding that the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act violates the First Amendment principal against banning speech that expresses ideas that offend. The decision was joined by all 8 participating justices. The case was heralded as not just a win for the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants, but also for the Washington Redskins whose trademark registrations were challenged based on the same disparagement clause.

The USPTO was quick to act, issuing Examination Guide No. 1-17 on June 26, providing a framework for how the PTO will examine applications following the Supreme Court’s decision. Opportunistic brand owners were also quick to act; World Trademark Review reports that at least 11 trademark applications for marks that could possibly be deemed disparaging were filed the day of the ruling.

In light of Tam, two other provisions of Section 2(a) — those that preclude registration of immoral and scandalous marks — also seem likely to fall, as both could be interpreted as banning speech likely to offend. In fact, the constitutionality of the scandalousness provision of 2(a) is currently pending before the Federal Circuit (In re Brunetti), and it seems likely the Fed. Cir. will move forward with Brunetti in the aftermath of Tam.

What does Tam mean to brand owners? It seems unlikely that the ability to now federally register offending marks will herald a seismic shift in branding strategies. The ability to use a trademark was never at issue in Tam, simply the ability to protect a mark by federal registration. Similarly, the public’s appetite for offensive brands will likely also not be enhanced by the new ability to obtain federal registration for such source indicia. Just as it is unlikely that the Court’s decision in Tam will persuade my son’s middle school principal that a T-shirt bearing the phrase HOMEWORK.SUCKS (INTA swag courtesy of the folks at dotSucks) is appropriate classroom attire. As always, the strength of a brand goes not to its novelty, but to its long-term ability to communicate the positive attributes of the associated products and services to consumers.

This post was written by Monica Riva Talley of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.