Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Rule Change Alert! The Bayh-Dole Act Has New Time and Reporting Requirements

On May 7, 2018

On April 30, 2018, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued rule changes regarding the Bayh-Dole Act. The Bayh-Dole Act was enacted in 1980 as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act (Pub. L. No. 96-517), amended in 1984 by the Trademark Clarification Act of 1984 (Title V of Pub. L. No. 98-620), and again in 2000 by the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 1999 (Pub. L. No. 106-404). The Bayh-Dole Act created a uniform policy that allows small businesses and nonprofit organizations the option to retain title to inventions made under government contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements that are for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work. The implementing regulations are found at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 27.3. The April 30, 2018 revisions to the Bayh-Dole Act are categorized as follows: No time limit for government to request title. Since implementation, the government had 60 days within which it could request title to any inventions. The new rule removes the 60 day notice period. Quicker timeframe to prosecute patent applications. Previously, contractors and grant recipients had to notify the agency who granted them money of their intent to prosecute a patent application and maintain it and enter into reexamination or opposition proceedings not less than...

Governor Murphy Signs New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Law

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Employee Benefits

On May 4, 2018

On May 2, 2018, Governor Murphy signed the comprehensive paid sick leave bill passed by the New Jersey Legislature in April. For a description of the law and how it will affect New Jersey employers, please see our previous blog post. For questions regarding this bill, or paid sick leave laws generally, please feel free to contact an attorney in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.

New York City and New York State Pass Comprehensive Anti-Harassment Legislation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Discrimination

On May 2, 2018

The New York City Council recently passed the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act (“NYC Act”), a series of bills that address sexual harassment prevention in the workplace. Mayor Bill de Blasio is expected to sign the legislation into law in the near future. The passage of the NYC Act coincides with the signing of the 2018-2019 New York State Budget (“the Bill”), which includes comprehensive and significant changes to State anti-harassment laws described as “necessary to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.” STOP SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN NYC ACT Mandatory Anti-Harassment Training The NYC Act would require employers (with 15 or more employees including interns) to conduct annual anti-sexual harassment training beginning on April 1, 2019 for all employees, including supervisors and managers. The training is required for all employees who work more than 80 hours in a calendar year and for new employees within 90 days of hire. The training must cover a range of topics, including a statement that harassment is a form of discrimination under state and federal law; a description of sexual harassment (including examples of what constitutes harassment); internal complaint procedures for an employee to make a harassment complaint; information about the complaint process under local, state, and federal law (including agency contact information); prohibitions on retaliation; information about bystander...

USPTO Issues Guidance Applying SAS Institute to Pending and Future PTAB Trials

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On May 1, 2018

On April 26, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a guidance, applying SAS Institute v. Iancu to the America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court in SAS Institute held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the original petition. The USPTO guidance gives a general outline of how the PTAB will review patents in the future, and how it will handle cases that are already pending. The memo makes clear that the PTAB will no longer have partial institutions: “if the PTAB institutes a trial, the PTAB will institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” For pending trials in which the PTAB has instituted trial on only some of the petitioned claims, “the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” The final written decision will address, to the extent claims are still pending at the time of decision, “all patent claims challenged by the petitioner and all new claims added through the amendment process.” When supplementing the institution decision, the panel has discretion to manage the trial proceeding. The panel may permit “additional time, briefing, discovery, and/or oral argument, depending on...

Howard Geneslaw Argues Before NJ Supreme Court in Dunbar Homes on Behalf of NJ State Bar Association

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On May 1, 2018

On Monday, April 9, 2018, Howard D. Geneslaw, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property Department, argued before the Supreme Court of New Jersey on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association (“NJSBA”) as an amicus curiae in the matter of Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin. The NJSBA was one of several amici involved in this case of first impression on the key question of when a submission to a municipal planning board is considered an “application for development” for purposes of being afforded protection under the “time of application” rule. The “time of application” rule provides that the zoning regulations which govern the review of an application for development are those in effect at the time it is submitted. The issue to be decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court centers on what constitutes submission of an application for development which allows the applicant to invoke the protection of the “time of application” rule. The Appellate Division, in a reported decision, ruled that protection is not available until an applicant submits all documents specified in the municipality’s application checklist adopted by ordinance, although the application need not have been deemed complete for protection to vest, but did not address what occurs when the checklist is...

Stronger Patents Act Introduced in House of Representatives

by Estelle J. Tsevdos, Ph.D.

Posted in Biotech / Patent / Pharmaceuticals

On April 30, 2018

On April 3, 2018, Representatives Steve Stivers and Bill Foster introduced H.R. 5340, entitled Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act implementation. This legislation parallels legislation introduced by Senators Chris Coons and Tom Cotton last year. This bill was introduced because its sponsors believe that the U.S. has driven innovation away with issues that particularly relate to the America Invents Act (AIA). The bill has the following portions in Section 102: Section A – Requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to use the same standard as District Courts when deciding what inventions the patent covers – claim construction. Currently, the PTAB uses the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and does not consider all of the evidence of a valid patent claim. Section B – Requires the PTAB to use the same burden of proof – clear and convincing evidence – that is used by District Courts. Right now, the PTAB uses the preponderance of the evidence standard. Section C – Ensures that a petitioner has a business or financial reason to bring the case before the PTAB. This is in direct response to the stockholder suits that have been brought in the PTAB against certain companies. Section D – Authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office...

Supreme Court Upholds the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent

On April 27, 2018

The Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group upheld the constitutionality of inter partes reviews, holding that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that inter partes review involves public rights and is simply a reconsideration of the grant of a public franchise. Therefore, allowing the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reconsider the grant of a public right does not violate Article III. The Supreme Court concluded that the grant of a patent has long been recognized as a public right, and the Seventh Amendment is not violated because a jury is not necessary since the PTO can properly conduct inter partes review. The Supreme Court qualified that its holding was narrow. The Supreme Court’s constitutionality determination applied to inter partes review only. The Court did not rule on the retroactive application of inter partes review to a patent granted before AIA post-grant proceedings were in place, nor to any due process challenges. Oil States Energy Services and Greene’s Energy are oilfield services company. After Oil States sued Greene’s Energy for infringing a patent related to hydraulic fracturing, Greene’s Energy challenged the patent’s validity in an inter partes review. The inter partes review and litigation progressed in parallel. A...

Governor Murphy Signs New Jersey Pay Equity Legislation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Discrimination

On April 25, 2018

Yesterday, Governor Murphy signed the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act. The new law will go into effect July 1, 2018. For a description of the law and how it will affect New Jersey employers, please see our previous blog post. If you have any questions regarding how to comply with New Jersey’s new pay equity law, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.

While the PTO Director has Discretion to Institute an IPR, the Board Must Review All Petitioned Claims Upon Institution

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Patent / USPTO

On April 25, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court in SAS Institute v. Iancu held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “the Board”) institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the original petition. Here, in a case with wide-reaching implications, the questions centered on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director’s discretion and subsequent control of an IPR. In the underlying case, SAS filed a petition for IPR alleging that all 16 claims of a particular patent were unpatentable. The Board instituted review on nine of the challenged claims and denied review on the rest, eventually finding eight of the instituted claims unpatentable in a final written decision. The Federal Circuit rejected SAS’s argument on appeal that 35 U. S. C. §318(a) required that the Board decide the patentability of all 16 claims challenged in the petition. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, reversed the Federal Circuit, striking down partial IPR decisions. The Supreme Court held that the plain text of §318(a) conclusively answers the question presented. The section directs that “[i]f an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the [Board] shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim...

New Jersey Senate Labor Committee Amends Bill Prohibiting Use of Nondisclosure Provisions in Employment and Settlement Agreements

by Susan L. Nardone

Posted in Discrimination / Employment Agreements

On April 20, 2018

In response to the recent spotlight on sexual abuse and harassment claims in the workplace and the #MeToo movement, the federal government and numerous states, including New Jersey, have focused attention on the use of nondisclosure provisions in settlement agreements involving claims of sexual harassment and assault. As we previously reported, the Tax Cuts and Job Bills Act was passed in December 2017 and includes a provision that bars any settlement or payment related to claims of sexual harassment or sexual abuse from being deducted as a business expense if the payments are subject to a nondisclosure agreement. While the federal tax bill aims to discourage the use of nondisclosure agreements, the proposed New Jersey legislation initially provided an outright ban on such agreements. At the time of its first introduction during the prior legislative session in December 2017, Senator Loretta Weinberg’s proposed bill prohibited New Jersey employers from including “a provision in any employment contract or agreement which has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.” The bill is unique because it is not limited to sexual harassment or abuse claims, but rather would apply to any type of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Senator Weinberg’s bill was reintroduced...