Commercial Law

Features

In <i>MedImmune v. Genentech</i>, decided Jan. 9, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court swept away over a decade of Federal Circuit precedent to find that a licensee need not breach a patent license in order to file a declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity or unenforceability. The decision shifted substantial power from licensors to licensees: previously, a licensee had to choose the lesser of two evils. On one hand, the licensee could comply with the terms of a license agreement and forego any challenge to a patent, even if it felt the patent was not infringed, invalid, or unenforceable. On the other hand, the licensee could breach the license and challenge infringement, validity, and enforceability; in doing so, however, it exposed itself to potentially trebled damages and attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. '' 284 &amp; 285 and an injunction against future sales under 35 U.S.C. ' 283 if its challenge failed.

Features

The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse estimates that over 100 million records containing sensitive personal information have been involved in security breaches. This non-profit consumer organization has tracked these breaches on its website (www.privacyrights.org) beginning with the significant and well-publicized ChoicePoint breach in February 2005. As a result, over two-thirds of states enacted security breach notification laws governing the notification that a company must make in the event of a security breach. This article outlines the requirements for providing notification of a security breach under state security breach notification law by any company and the factors that a public company needs to take into account regarding whether to disclose a security breach under federal securities law.

Features

When the dust settles from the current round of discussions on increasing the federal minimum wage, the lowest paid of the country's non-exempt employees may or may not be earning an additional dollar or two per hour. Either way, the debate will have drawn the country's ' and the plaintiffs' bars' ' attention toward the lowest paid of our country's workers, and the climate will be right for those attorneys to begin focusing not only on how much non-exempt employees are being paid per hour, but also on whether these workers are being paid in a manner that is consistent with every intricate (and often contrary-to-common-sense) twist and turn of federal and state law.

Features

In <i>Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States</i>, 125 S. Ct. 2129, 235 (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of records management policies that provide for the routine destruction of unneeded records under ordinary circumstances. It is, however, common knowledge that such policies should ordinarily be suspended once an investigation or litigation is reasonably anticipated. This is normally accomplished through the imposition of a 'litigation hold,' the process of notifying employees of their obligations to preserve all potentially relevant records while continuing the routine destruction of non-relevant active and archived data. This may be a company's first line of defense against claims of spoliation or obstruction. The failure to suspend routine purges of records in the face of litigation has contributed to the imposition of sanctions as high as $1.45 billion on companies.

Features

Historically, when a health care company had a compliance failure, counsel could help it remain in business by negotiating with the relevant agency. If the problem involved sales, marketing or pricing, the company could seek a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at Health and Human Services (HHS). If the problems related to manufacturing, counsel could obtain a consent decree of permanent injunction ('consent decree') with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Consent decrees and CIAs each had their particular burdens and benefits, which health care practitioners had learned to navigate. Now this tidy distinction has become blurred as the FDA has borrowed features from HHS's CIAs.

Features

An end-of-year (Nov. 29) Delaware Chancery Court decision, <i>Esopus Creek Value LP v. Hauf</i>, is receiving a great deal of attention from corporate transactional and corporate restructuring attorneys alike. In Esopus, the Delaware Chancery Court prevented a financially sound company that was prohibited by federal securities law from holding a shareholder vote, because it failed to meet its reporting requirements, from executing an agreement outside of bankruptcy to sell substantially all of its assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code without first obtaining common stockholder approval as required under Section 271(a) of the Delaware General Company Law ('DGCL').

Features

The image of bondholder activism in many quarters is one of rapacious bondholders aggressively pursuing a ruthless quest for returns. The reality is far more complex, but the outcome of particular cases may be surprisingly predictable for the astute analyst.

Features

In the recent decision of <i>First Niagara Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Fin. Group, Inc.</i> (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the 'Federal Circuit's decision'), the Federal Circuit overturned a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the 'Board') dismissing an opposition by First Niagara Insurance Brokers ('FN-Canada'), a Canadian company, to registration of 'First Niagara' and related marks by First Niagara Financial Group ('FN-US'), a U.S. company. In rendering its holding, the Federal Circuit declared that, in some cases, what would seem to be purely foreign trademark activity may establish superior trademark rights in the United States.