MVA Litigation

For nearly 150 years, it has been established that a patent holder (“patentee”) ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. ____ (Jan. 22, 2014) reversed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ attempt to shift the burden of proof to a licensee seeking a declaratory judgment that its products do not infringe the patentee’s patents.  The unanimous Supreme Court found little support for upsetting the balance of our “well-functioning patent system” or ...

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U. S. ____ (Jan. 14, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that general or “all-purpose” jurisdiction can be exercised over foreign corporations only “when their affilia­tions with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” No general jurisdiction lies over a foreign defendant in a suit by foreign plaintiffs for actions outside of the U.S., based solely on its indirect subsidiary’s contacts with a state in which it is neither incorporated nor holds its principal place of ...

Although the Circuit Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue currently stand united in the view that class arbitration waivers in individual employment contracts do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruling to the contrary in D. R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, Case 12–CA–25764, 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012) continues to drive the invalidation of arbitration agreements in employment agreements.  On January 17, 2014, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge relied on the NLRB’s decision in D.R ...

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 14, 2014 that the state parens patriae action in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. Au Optronics Corp. was not removable under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 as a “mass action,” because the state is the only named plaintiff:  571 U. S. ___ (2014).  You can read our previous posts on AU Optronics here and here.  Posted by Tony Lathrop, January 17, 2014.

            The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rendered its long-awaited decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 12-60031 (5^th Cir.  Dec. 3, 2013), revised December 4, 2013, which reversed the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruling that held a class arbitration waiver contained in an arbitration provisions of individual employment contracts violated the rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to engage in concerted activities.  The NLRB issued its decision in D. R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda, Case 12–CA–25764, 357 NLRB No. 184 ...

            The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals identified two principles driving the potential certification of a class in employment discrimination cases in Scott, et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., No. 12-1610 (4th Cir. Oct., 16, 2013) that it believes are “readily derived” from Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), but were misunderstood by the District Court when it denied plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to provide additional detail regarding allegations that Family Dollar exercised “centralized control of compensation for store managers at ...

            This year several proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Civil Rules”) are under consideration.  In a previous post, we highlighted the most recent proposed amendments to the Civil Rules which focus on discovery limits and spoliation sanctions and were published for public comment by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules on August 15, 2013 (the “Discovery Amendments”).  On December 1, 2013, some of the most long-awaited changes to the Civil Rules will take effect – the proposed amendments to Rule 45, which governs the use of ...

           We continue our exploration of removability under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) and the threshold question that has driven a split between the Circuit Courts of Appeals described as “intolerable as a matter of federalism,” carrying CAFA back to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Before determining whether any requirement for removal under CAFA is met, the critical question is: is the case at hand even a class or mass action?  CAFA debuted on the U.S. Supreme Court’s calendar last term with Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 568 US __ (2013), and ...

            Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court broke ground on interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) by setting limits on plaintiffs seeking to maneuver around federal jurisdiction.  Having resolved in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345, 568 US __ (2013) the quandary presented by plaintiffs attempting to stipulate their way around CAFA’s $5 million threshold for class action removal, the Supreme Court and lower courts recently have been faced with a threshold question of a different nature regarding removability under CAFA: is the case at hand even a ...

            On October 2, 2013, the Local Rules Committee of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina announced that it has published for comment proposed amendments to the Local Civil Rules and Local Criminal Rules.  The proposed amendments to the Local Civil Rules include the addition of new rules and changes to some existing rules, including LR 5.4, 7.1(a), 7.3(i), 7.6, 15.1, 16.2, 16.3, 26.2, 37.1, 54.1, 72.4, 83.7, 83.9e(i), 83.10h(d), 83.11, and 103.2(b).  The only proposed amendment to the Local Criminal Rules includes the incorporation under LCrR 57.1 of ...