◊ VRP Law-The Intellectual Property and Employment Law Blog.
Provided by Vihar R. Patel and Sponsored by Enterprise Law Group, LLPArchive for July, 2009
Displaying Products at Trade Shows-Basis for Personal Jurisdiction!
Imagine you are a foreign company selling a product in Brazil. Your company does not sell or distribute products in the United States (“US”). You learn of a trade show or convention relating to your products. It’s an international trade show or convention located at a site in the US. You decide to send a company representative to the US with a demo of your product.
Little did you know that now, you will be subjecting yourself to a lawsuit in the US. This is very close to the facts that led the Federal Circuit to find personal jurisdiction for Synthes (U.S.A) to sue GMReis. GMReis’ CEO and an employee attended international trade show of the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) in San Diego and displayed five interlocking bone plates at a booth. At the trade show, GMReis was served with a complaint for patent infringement.
Synthes an assignee of a US patent directed at “a bone plating system and method for fracture fixation of bone” sued GMReis, a Brazilian company for patent infringement in the US. The Federal Circuit held that under FRCP 4 (k) (2), although the court did not have general jurisdiction over GMReis, there was sufficient contact for specific jurisdiction relating to patent infringement.
The court’s holding was based on the following activities by GMReis: 1) attending seven (7) trade shows in the US demonstrating its products; 2) selling one (1) product to a veterinary company in the US; 3) purchasing parts and a manufacturing machine for use in Brazil; 4) meeting with two American companies regarding purchase and development of non accused products; and 5) two inquiries by US entities regarding FDA approval of its interlocking bone plating products and potential clinical trials.
The Federal Circuit’s analysis of minimum contacts and whether or not it would be reasonable and fair to sue a foreign company in the US; opens the door to patent infringement claims against foreign entities. Only, time will tell how far this door will open, but it’s another tool for a patent holder to protect its interest.
Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act-Summary
The Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act (TLTIA) has several important changes that trademark owners, practitioners and litigators should know. The following are important provisions of the act that can impact your mark(s):
1) the requirement in section 1(a) and 1(b) for the applicant to state the mode or manner in which the mark is to be used or in connection with goods is eliminated;
2) an application based on foreign trademark no longer has to be accompanied by a certificate or certified copy of the foreign registration at the time of filing is eliminated;
3) to revive an application under 12 (b) the applicant must now demonstrate an unintentional delay in filing a untimely response to an Office Action instead of showing an unavoidable delay; and
4) a section 8 affidavit of continued use or excusable nonuse must be filed in the 9th year of mark’s registration and every ten years thereafter. Section 9 no longer requires a declaration of continued use or excusable nonuse in a renewal application. Thus, every tenth year, the owner of a registration must file both a §8 affidavit and a §9 renewal application. However, a section §8 affidavit must still be filed between the fifth and sixth year after the date of registration.
For additional changes see: tlt_summ
Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage in IL?
Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage by IL may seem unnecessary, but it is required under Illinois Continuation laws. The Illinois Continuation laws apply to employers or companies of any size and provides for the following:
1) spousal and dependent continuation of health insurance coverage;
2) written notice to the employee of his or her right to elect Illinois Continuation Health Coverage;
3) the employee bears a 100% of the premiums costs for electing the coverage;
4) the employee must elect the coverage within 60 days of the date his or her employment was terminated;
5) benefits for hospital, surgical or major medical are the same as that under the previous group coverage; and
6) the Illinois Continuation coverage lasts for nine months from the date of termination or separation of employment.
If you have any questions regarding the requirements for Continuation of Health Insurance Coverage in IL, then please feel free to contact us.
When is an Employer required to provide a Reasonable Accommodation to disabled employees?
In the legal world, a Reasonable Accommodation is not a stay at a five star hotel or resort. Instead these terms, refer to the balance that courts attempt to strike between a disabled employee’s rights and an employer’s duty to accommodate the employee.
Typically, the employer or Company does not have to provide a Reasonable Accommodation under the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA), unless the employee asks for the accommodation or the employer knows of the disability. Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co. Inc., 47 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir. 1995).
In order for the employer’s obligation to accommodate to be triggered, without the employee’s request, the symptoms of the disability must be obvious enough to reasonably infer that the employer actually knew about the disability. Hedberg, 47 F.3d 928, 934 (7th Cir. 1995) and Jovanovic v. In-Sink-Erator Div. of Emerson Elec. Co., 201 F.3d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 2000).
However, this inquiry is often very fact specific, and courts will make a case by case determination about whether or not the employer or Company, had a duty to provide a Reasonable Accommodation to its disabled employees.
