Month: January 2019

Once Sold (Even Under Term Of Confidentiality), An Invention May Not Be Patented

Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an invention may not be patented if it has been “in public use, sold, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the issue was whether an invention had been “sold” within the ambit of the... Read More >

Decisions, January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1

Christopher P. Ferragamo, a Director in Jackson & Campbell, P.C.'s Insurance Coverage Practice Group, prepares a bi-monthly newsletter that addresses healthcare issues and healthcare coverage issues called Decisions. Read the latest issue here. Please see below for prior issues of Decisions: November 2018 - Volume 4, Issue 6 September 2018 - Volume 4, Issue 5 July 2018 - Volume... Read More >

Virginia Supreme Court: Newly-Acquired Subsidiary Does Not Receive Coverage Under Owner’s Property Insurance

After EPC MD 15, LLC purchased commercial property fire insurance from Erie Insurance Exchange, it purchased another company that owned a separate building on another property. The new subsidiary was not a named insured under the original policy. When that building sustained fire damage, EPC submitted a claim, claiming that the purchase of the subsidiary made the subsidiary’s property “newly... Read More >

Robbery Is A “Violent Felony” Under Armed Career Criminal Act

The Armed Career Criminal Act provides a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who had previously been convicted of three “violent” felonies. The Act defines a “violent felony” as “any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”... Read More >

Federal Arbitration Act Does Not Compel Arbitration For Disputes With Interstate Drivers

In New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, a driver for an interstate trucking company filed a class action claiming that the company denied its drivers lawful wages. The company, citing the mandatory arbitration provision in the driver’s contract, asked the district court to transfer the case to arbitration. The driver argued that the case was exempt under Section 1 of... Read More >

Are Attorneys Conducting Nonjudicial Foreclosures “Debt Collectors?” U.S. Supreme Court To Decide.

On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Obduskey v. McCarthy Holthus, LLP, in which Wells Fargo, through counsel, conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure on Obduskey’s home after he defaulted on a loan. The foreclosure notice did not request that Obduskey make any payments on the debt—it simply set forth the total amount due under the... Read More >

Court Rejects Cap On Aggregate Attorney Fees Under Social Security Act

Under the Social Security Act, an attorney representing a claimant seeking past-due benefits is limited in the fees he or she may charge. Section 406(a) of the Act capped fees at the lesser of 25 percent of the past-due benefits, or $6,000 in proceedings before the agency. Section 406(b) of the Act capped fees at 25 percent of the... Read More >

Federal Arbitration Act Forbids Courts From Weighing In On Arbitrability

The Federal Arbitration Act permits parties to enter into contracts agreeing that an arbitrator, rather than a court, will resolve disputes arising out of that contract. However, sometimes there are disputes as to whether a particular claim is subject to arbitration under the agreement. Even when contracts delegate the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, some federal courts had reserved... Read More >

Court Upholds Qualified Immunity For Officer Responding To Domestic Dispute

In City of Escondido v. Emmons, Officer Craig and Sergeant Toth responded to a call reporting a domestic dispute at a home. After talking to the occupants from outside the home for a bit, one of the occupants exited and tried to brush past Officer Craig. The officer quickly took the man to the ground and handcuffed him. The... Read More >

Subsequent SCOTUS Decisions Are Not “Clearly Established Law” For Habeas Petitions

After being convicted by Ohio’s state courts for murder and sentenced to death in 1986, Danny Hill challenged the judgment on the basis that the Eighth Amendment prohibits someone who is “mentally retarded” from receiving a death sentence, as established in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). When that failed in the state courts, he filed a federal... Read More >