The United States Supreme Court, in Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., a recent 6-3 decision, found that innocent legal errors in copyright applications do not preclude copyright holders from taking advantage of the safe harbor provision of the Copyright Act, which protects registrants from having their copyrights invalidated due to inadvertent errors. The Court’s ruling therefore made clear that such errors in copyright applications—including both mistakes of law and mistakes of fact—will rarely be the basis for invalidation.
PTAB Institutes IPR Following Federal Circuit’s Decision to Transfer Parallel District Court Litigation
By Erin Short on
Recently, in Google LLC v. Ikongoro Tech. LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board” or “PTAB”) instituted inter partes review after it had previously denied the institution of such a review due to the pendency of related district court litigation in the Western District of Texas—a case which was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California by the Federal Circuit granting mandamus relief. The Board’s decision casts light on the interplay between the PTAB’s discretion to deny institution of inter partes review and the increased focus on transfers out of the Western District of Texas.
New York Broadens the Scope of Admissible Employee Statements
By Gourdin Sirles on
In a seismic change to its evidentiary jurisprudence, New York recently enacted legislation that significantly broadens the admissibility of statements made by a party’s agent or employee.
Until now, New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) had an oft-maligned (or, perhaps sometimes celebrated) quirk—statements of a party’s agent or employee were inadmissible as hearsay unless made by someone with actual authority to speak on behalf of the party. This was in stark contrast to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which require only that the employee or agent be speaking “on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed.”
Price Gouging Updates: Warren Accuses Large Corporations of Price Gouging; Plaintiffs Respond in Amazon Price Gouging Case
In an interview on All In with Chris Hayes in January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., claimed that a factor causing the high prices facing U.S. consumers is “giant corporations who say, wow, a lot of talk about high prices and inflation. This is a chance to get in there and…
Recent Change to New York’s Hearsay Law Could have Implications for Workplace Litigation
By Michael Guggenheim on
New York’s unique approach to evidentiary procedure – and specifically, its rules governing admissions by a party opponent’s agent – have frustrated litigators for years. Recent changes to New York’s rules on civil procedure, however, have brought the state’s approach to hearsay more in line with the standard set by the Federal Rules of Evidence. These changes could significantly impact future litigation, especially disputes centered on workplace conduct.
The Administrative State Under Attack: Potentially Far Reaching Implications of Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear Challenge to FTC Administrative Review Process
By Amy Gordon & David Munkittrick on
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that courts must defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But last year, the Supreme Court stripped the FTC of its ability to seek equitable monetary remedies such as disgorgement or restitution. And a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court dismantled the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) vaccine mandate, with Justice Gorsuch writing that the decision prevents OSHA from becoming a “roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery correct them.” The Supreme Court may be positioning itself to say something similar about the FTC.
Defining a “Good Faith” Director: Key Takeaways from Recent Court Rulings on Corporate Board Oversight
By Briana Seyarto Flores on
Corporate boards are subject to a duty of oversight, as part of their duty of loyalty to their company. As outlined by Delaware’s famously stringent Caremark standard, pleading a violation of that duty is often difficult. However, the Delaware Court of Chancery has issued several recent opinions addressing duty of oversight claims where they held the plaintiffs successfully met the Caremark standard. These decisions serve as important reminders for corporate boards to thoughtfully carry out their oversight duties, in order to ensure that their internal controls, reporting systems, and other oversight-related practices are sufficiently comprehensive.