Do Employees Working from Home Impact Venue in Patent Litigation?

In patent infringement cases, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C § 1406(a) where either (1) the company accused of infringement is incorporated or (2) where the company has committed acts of infringement and has a “regular and established place of business.” Given the increase in employees working from home in recent years, the question has arisen as to whether an employee’s home office is considered a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of patent venue. In most instances, the courts have indicated that an employee’s home office is insufficient to establish venue absent the company ratifying that home office as a “regular and established place of business.” However, the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Monolith Power Systems, Inc. may have reopened that question.

The Interplay Between Section 230 Immunity and The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2018

The Ninth Circuit was recently called upon to decide a case of first impression for it involving the interplay between immunity granted to website providers under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) and potential civil liability under The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2018 (“FOSTA”). In the case, Jane Does v. Reddit, Inc., decided October 24, 2022, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ class action complaint against Reddit for allegedly hosting child pornography in its forums after analyzing the interplay between the CDA and FOSTA.

From Saving the World to Fighting Over IP: Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech

One of the most amazing accomplishments in the field of biotechnology has been the development and distribution of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID 19). The numbers tell the story.

The time from when the coronavirus’ RNA sequence, identified by China, was published on January 11, 2020 to the date that clinical trials in the U.S. began in March 2020 was 66 days. From the date the RNA sequence was published to the date that a vaccine was first administered to the public, on December 11, 2020, was 11 months. Within a year of the date the RNA sequence was published, both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech were providing thousands of doses of mRNA vaccines to people around the world. The mRNA vaccines were extremely effective – they provided about 94-95% protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death. These vaccines are now available to anyone over the age of six months. In the world’s wealthiest countries, and in much of the rest of the world, vaccine availability is no longer a factor getting vaccinated.

Employers Take Note – New EEOC Poster Available for Immediate Posting

Earlier this month, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a new poster that employers are required to display in their workplaces. The “Know Your Rights: Workplace Discrimination is Illegal” poster updates and replaces the previous “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law” poster. According to the press release, the new poster includes the following changes:  

Rounding Policies Called Further Into Question

In California, it has long been the rule that an employer is entitled to use a rounding policy “if the rounding policy is fair and neutral on its face and ‘it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.’” (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 907 (See’s Candy I), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b) and citing Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual (2002 rev.) §§ 47.1, 47.2 (DLSE Manual). However, since that ruling in 2012, California courts have slowly chipped away at that rule. Most recently, the California Supreme Court held that rounding is not permitted for purposes of meal breaks. (See Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58.) Now, a California Court of Appeal has determined a rounding policy that was otherwise neutral on both its face, and in application, to be unlawful. This ruling calls into question whether California employers may continue rounding employees time under any circumstance.

District Court Finds Plaintiff Failed to Meet Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirements

In SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar Beets LLC, 2-22-cv-02576 (CDCA Oct. 21, 2022)District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California found the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer as required by the Local Rules before Plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss Defendant’s noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims. The Court, in its discretion, still considered the motion to dismiss but ultimately summarily denied plaintiff’s motion.

NBA Star Luka Doncic Goes Hard in the Paint and Seeks to Cancel Mom’s Trademark

An interesting trademark dispute has arisen between Dallas Mavericks phenom Luka Doncic and his mother over the trademark LUKA DONCIC 7, which is currently owned by Doncic’s mother. I can’t imagine this is the first time there has been a familial dispute over trademark rights, but I can definitely say this is the first time that I personally have ever seen a mother and son feuding over such things. It’s odd to say the least.