On April 1—no joke—the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s troubling new standard for magnet sets was slated to go into effect. However, thanks to the efforts of the sole remaining distributor of Small Rare Earth Magnets (SREMs) in the United States, Zen Magnets LLC, consumer freedom won a last-minute reprieve.
As companies wishing to challenge final rules of federal agencies may typically do, Zen Magnets filed a stay of enforcement directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals covering its home state, Colorado in this case. In rapid response to Zen Magnets LLC’s motion for a stay, the Tenth Circuit issued a same-day order to temporarily “stay the enforcement and effect of the Safety Standard for Magnet Sets promulgated by respondent Consumer Product Safety Commission on October 3, 2014, which goes into effect on April 1, 2015.” In addition, the Court ordered CPSC to file a brief in response on or before today (April 14) “to assist the court in its review of the motion.”
Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court had to consider four factors in issuing the motion to stay: likelihood of success on the merits; threat of irreparable harm; absence of harm to the government; and risk of harm to the public interest. Just because the Tenth Circuit has issued the stay does not mean that it has decided the motion to stay enforcement will succeed. Still, if the Court were convinced that the arguments Zen Magnets has presented in opposition to the Magnet Safety Standard were frivolous or had little chance to prevail, it is unlikely the Court would have issued even a temporary stay. Since the appeals court’s review marks the first time any entity outside the agency’s purview has had an opportunity to check CPSC’s work, it is encouraging to see the Tenth Circuit forcing the agency to explain its unprecedented actions here. Continue reading
In the 1997 futuristic thriller “Gattaca,” character Vincent Freeman, played by actor Ethan Hawke, falls victim to genetic discrimination after the government begins to track and monitor human DNA strands via the Internet in a scheme to control and manipulate societal trends.
While the film’s plot seems nothing short of fantastical, the idea behind it—that the Internet has become an unguarded playground for identity thieves and major corporations to obtain unauthorized information in a quest to influence consumer behavior—echoes recent plaintiffs’ suits regarding the protection of personal privacy under the Video Privacy and Protection Act (VPPA) that have become increasingly popular in federal courts. Continue reading
Since its release in late February, the White House’s “Discussion Draft: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015” has drawn a significant amount of friendly fire from privacy activists and even federal privacy regulators. Their criticism insinuates that the Discussion Draft is at best a floor, a starting point for more stringent regulation. That perspective should be quite troubling to those who work in and benefit from the Internet Economy, for as we discuss below, certain aspects of the draft impose burdens on data use that far outpace any that currently prevail or have been proposed at the federal level.
“Privacy Risk.” The data rights and protections the Discussion Draft affords are predicated on consumers suffering a “privacy risk” harm. That harm is defined as “the potential for personal data, on its own or when linked to other information about an individual, to cause emotional distress, or physical, financial, professional or other harm to an individual” (our emphasis). This definition would enshrine into federal law broad, amorphous, and precautionary concepts of harm that are radically out of step with prevailing law. For instance, federal courts have almost uniformly rejected data-privacy-related class-action lawsuits where the injuries alleged reflect plaintiffs’ fears of financial harm or emotional concerns. One very recent example is a Middle District of Pennsylvania ruling, Storm v. Paytime, Inc. and Holt v. Paytime Harrisburg, Inc., in which the court found that plaintiffs who cannot allege harms that are “concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense” lack standing to sue. An alleged injury that provides the basis for a federal law enforcement action should certainly be no less concrete. Some activists, however, view “privacy risk” as too difficult for consumers or regulators to prove and have called for an even broader concept of injury. Continue reading
Featured Expert Contributor–Intellectual Property (Patents)
Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP
While various patent reform proposals percolate on Capitol Hill, the courts continue to decide cases that impact the issues. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. maintains the current standard for enhanced damages for willful infringement (a victory for accused infringers), but signals that a change may be coming (a victory for patent owners). Currently, a patent owner must prove that an infringer willfully infringes by clear and convincing evidence in order to recover enhanced damages. Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, enhanced damages may be up to three times the damages found.
In Halo Electronics, the Federal Circuit passed on an opportunity to change, and perhaps lower, the standard required for proving willful infringement, similar to how the Supreme Court lowered the standard for fee-shifting in Octane Fitness (see our previous post on fee-shifting). Although the court passed on the opportunity this time, four of the seven Federal Circuit judges are now on record as favoring reconsideration of the standard for enhanced damages for willful infringement. Continue reading
Featured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy
by Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP, with Katharine Newman, Sidley Austin LLP
On March 20, 2015, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a final rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal land managed by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, as well as on Native American tribal lands. The rule is the first from the federal government to specifically address hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.
For BLM, the final rule completes a process the agency began in 2010 to update well-drilling regulations in response to technological advances in high volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that now dominate domestic oil and gas operations. BLM reports that there are over 100,000 oil and gas wells under federal management and that at least ninety percent of these wells use hydraulic fracturing technology. The new rule will not, however, govern wells on private and state land that are regulated by state agencies and account for the vast majority of oil and gas development in the United States.
Below are five key highlights related to the final rule: Continue reading
By Douglas W. Greene and Claire Loebs Davis, Shareholders with Lane Powell PC in Seattle, Washington. They co-authored WLF’s amicus brief pro bono in Omnicare.
In the opinion issued on March 24 in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund (“Omnicare”), the Supreme Court rejected the two extremes advocated by the parties regarding how the truth or falsity of statements of opinion should be considered under the securities laws. Instead, it adopted the middle path advocated in the amicus brief filed by Lane Powell on behalf of Washington Legal Foundation (“WLF”).
In doing so, the Court also laid out a blueprint for examining claims of falsity under the securities laws, which we believe will do for falsity analysis what Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), did for scienter analysis. Hence, Omnicare will help defense counsel defeat claims that opinions were false or misleading in § 11 cases, as well as in cases brought under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. Continue reading
At issue in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises
The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co. has been among the Court’s more heavily criticized patent law decisions. A number of academics and appeals court judges have complained that Brulotte, which establishes a rule governing construction of patent licensing agreements, is based on a misunderstanding of the economic considerations underlying such agreements. Perhaps in response to that criticism, the Court granted certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. to consider a single question: should it overturn the 50-year-old Brulotte rule? The Court will hear oral arguments in Kimble on March 31.
The correct answer is a resounding “no.” At oral argument, the record will show that parties negotiating patent licensing agreements have relied on Brulotte for half a century when drafting terms governing royalty payments. Overturning Brulotte would be a patent troll’s dream. It could expose licensees to unforeseen royalty demands based on long-forgotten license agreements that they reasonably assumed—in reliance on the Brulotte rule—imposed no additional payment obligations after the expiration of the licensed patent. As with patent trolls, the potential liability in some cases may be so high that in terrorem settlement is the licensee’s only reasonable choice. In other cases, the nuisance value of the claim may be smaller than the cost to litigate. Either way, a shortsighted decision in Kimble could lead to decades of costly and vexatious litigation to no one’s benefit. Continue reading