Employers in Pennsylvania may or may not be enjoying high times as that state’s Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) went into effect on May 17, 2016.  This new law allows patients to use marijuana to treat autism, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and post-traumatic stress disorder, among other ailments.  Governor Tom Wolf signed the MMA into law on April 17, 2016, just three days before one of the most important dates on the calendar for marijuana enthusiasts.

The MMA does not allow all Pennsylvania citizens who feel under the weather to ingest marijuana however they like.  On the contrary, the MMA allows medical marijuana to be dispensed only to individuals who both have been issued an identification card from the Pennsylvania Department of Health and obtained a certification from a medical provider.  Nonetheless, Pennsylvania employers (like those in other states that have enacted similar laws) now will face some hazy dilemmas in terms of their drug-free workplace policies.Brenden Begley 05_final

That is because the MMA contains some potent anti-discrimination provisions but also creates some cloudy ambiguities.  For instance, the new law makes it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire, threaten, or discharge a prospective or current employee “solely on the basis of such employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana.”  On the other hand, the MMA does not specify whether employers may rely upon a positive drug test to impose an adverse employment action.

Meanwhile, the MMA does not require employers to refrain from imposing discipline “when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position.” The MMA also allows employers to discipline an employee who is “under the influence” of medical marijuana at work, yet it does not clarify whether a positive drug test could be used as evidence of impairment on the job.

This new law gives some latitude to employers with safety-sensitive work environments.  In particular, employers may prohibit employees from performing a number of tasks while under the influence of marijuana.  Such tasks include operating or controlling certain chemicals or high-voltage electricity, performing duties in dangerous places, or performing tasks that may put the life of the employee or the lives of others in jeopardy.  The law also states that employees in certain safety-sensitive positions may not have more than ten nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabis per milliliter of blood in serum.

Still, this list of exceptions could be interpreted as barring employers from restricting employees covered by the MMA in other common-sense ways.  Another budding problem stems from the lack of clarity as to how employers can ascertain whether an employee is impaired by the influence of marijuana while on the job.  Some observations may be helpful, but few appear to offer anything conclusive.  For instance, an employee who reeks of marijuana smoke might be subject to discipline.  That is because smoking marijuana in Pennsylvania will remain illegal; the MMA allows marijuana to be ingested only through alternative delivery systems such as pills or ointments.

Other observations might be helpful, such as the tell-tale red or glassy eyes or some level of confusion or distraction on the part of the employee.  But such circumstances may not conclusively identify the presence or cause of impairment.  And while blood-alcohol tests may be helpful in confirming how inebriated a worker is at the time of the test, drug tests for marijuana are not so precise in measuring the individual’s level of impairment at the time of the test.

For example, urine testing may reveal that the employee used marijuana at some point in the weeks prior to the test, but such tests typically cannot pinpoint whether such use occurred on a specific day.  Similarly, saliva testing may be able to detect more recent use – albeit without providing a absolute confirmation as to whether the employee was under the “influence of marijuana” on the job.

Beyond the ambiguities created by the MMA, its very enforceability may be subject to challenge – since it appears to be in direct conflict with federal laws that illegalize the use of marijuana.  Until the tension between federal law and Pennsylvania law is resolved by the courts, employers in the Keystone State should take some steps to keep their worksites from going up in smoke.

The first step would be to review and, if necessary, revise applicable handbooks and employment policies to make sure that they are compliant with both federal and Pennsylvania law.  At the same time, employers should consider reviewing their job descriptions for safety-sensitive positions.  Likewise, it would be advisable for employers to determine how positive marijuana tests will be handled.  In that regard, when an employee tests positive for marijuana, it might be wise to have appropriate managers designated and trained to communicate with the employee to ascertain whether he or she has the necessary documentation to be covered by the MMA.  Of course, it also would be prudent to consult with legal counsel to ensure that workplace policies and contemplated disciplinary actions do not run afoul of this new law.

On June 2, 2016 the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in a music sampling Copyright infringement case that sets up a split between the Ninth Scott-Hervey-10-webCircuit and the Sixth Circuit which will likely send the issue to the Supreme Court.   At issue in the Ninth Circuit case was a claim of infringement based on Madonna’s use of horn samples from the song “Love Break” in her hit song “Vogue”.  The first horn sample is a “single” horn hit comprised of a quarter-note chord with lasts for 0.23 seconds, and the second horn sample is a “double” horn hit consisting of an eighth-note chord of roughly the same length as the first.  In the various commercial versions of “Vogue”, the single horn hit is used once and the second is used a varying number of times but not more than 5.  The plaintiff claimed that the unapproved use of these samples infringes the plaintiff’s rights in both the master recording and composition of “Love Break.”

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the de minimis exception – where a use is of such a small amount that the average audience would not recognize the appropriation – applies to claims of infringement of a copyrighted composition, but it is an open question whether the exception applies to claims of infringement of a copyrighted sound recording.

Under the 2005 Sixth Circuit ruling in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), for copyrighted sound recordings, any unauthorized copying – no matter how trivial – constitutes infringement.  In Bridgeport, the rap group N.W.A. sampled a two-second guitar chord from a Funkadelic tune and used it five times in their the song “100 Miles and Runnin’”. In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit wrote: “Get a license or do not sample.”   The decision effectively eliminated the de minimis doctrine for sampling recorded music in the Sixth Circuit.

Bridgeport was an incredibly controversial ruling that had a huge impact on the music industry and what was standard industry practice. And while Bridgeport provided very clear guidelines on music sampling usage (get a license for everything), artists and music producers vehemently claimed that the ruling hindered creativity.

Addressing the application of the de minimis defense to copyright infringement of sound recordings, the Ninth Circuit rejected the holding of Bridgeport and held that the de minimis defense “applies throughout the law of copyright, including cases of music sampling.” The court continued:

Because we conclude that Congress intended to maintain the “de minimis” exception for copyrights to sound recordings, we take the unusual step of creating a circuit split by disagreeing with the Sixth Circuit’s contrary holding in Bridgeport… We acknowledge that our decision has consequences.  But the goal of avoiding a circuit split cannot override our independent duty to determine congressional intent.  Otherwise, we would have no choice but to blindly follow the rule announced by whichever circuit court decided an issue first, even if we were convinced, as we are here, that our sister circuit erred.

While this split between the Ninth Circuit and Sixth Circuit will likely be resolved at the Supreme Court, during the interim we will likely see artists and producers emboldened by the Ninth Circuit decision and sound recording owners race to a district court within the Sixth Circuit whenever they believe a sample may infringe their rights.

So what is a trade secret?  Generally, a trade secret is information that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, derives independent economic value from not being generally known, and cannot be readily ascertainable by proper means, such as reverse engineering or independent development.  Many businesses rely on trade secret protection rather than patent protection for confidential information such as product recipes (e.g., the recipe for Coca-Cola), software algorithms (e.g., Google’s search engine), customer lists, business plans, wholesale price lists, and manufacturing processes for semiconductor chips.  Trade secrets have the advantage that they are protected indefinitely as long as they remain a secret, unlike patents and copyrights that expire after a specific time period.  Of course, a disadvantage of trade secrets is that they can be lost instantly and forever if they are disclosed or independently developed by another.  But, unlike other forms of intellectual property, such as patents and copyrights, until now federal law applied only to criminal prosecution for trade secret misappropriation.  As a civil matter, trade secrets were only protected under state law.  That all changed on May 11, 2016, when President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), which amends the Economic Espionage Act to create a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation.  The DTSA, codified as 18 U.S.C. §1836(b), went into effect when it was signed and applies to any misappropriation that occurs on or after that date.

Trade secret misappropriation can occur in a variety of circumstances.  One of the most common is when an employee leaves one company to a join competitor or a start-up and impermissibly takes protected business or technical information belonging to their former employer to the new company.  As another example, hackers capitalizing on computer security weaknesses pose a threat for the misappropriation of a company’s trade secrets.  To protect against such misappropriation, 48 states (all except New York and Massachusetts, which still rely on common law) have adopted some version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), providing some uniformity in trade secret law.  But there are still a number of significant differences between the states’ laws as adopted, and it can be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce state laws when misappropriators flee the state or country with the trade secrets.  For example, it can be difficult or impossible to effect service of process and obtain discovery to prove misappropriation outside of a state’s jurisdiction.  One goal of the DTSA, which in many aspects mirrors the UTSA, is to provide a harmonized federal trade secret law, which will allow businesses that operate across multiple states to have uniform policies for protection and enforcement of trade secrets.

It, however, is important to note that the DTSA does not preempt state laws, but instead it provides an additional layer of potential protection on top of the state laws.
This complication has led some to argue that the DTSA will increase legal costs and increase the number of trade secret lawsuits.  For example, we can expect plaintiffs to bring both state and federal claims because differences between the state and federal laws may make it possible for a plaintiff to win under one law but not the other.  More claims implicating differing state and federal laws will likely lead to higher costs for litigation.  Further, more plaintiffs may be willing to pursue trade secret claims because it will be easier to file the claims in federal court, and some plaintiffs prefer federal court for complex lawsuits such as trade secret cases.  The volume of trade secret lawsuits may also increase because plaintiffs will effectively be given two bites at the apple (state claims and federal claims in the same lawsuit), which likely gives them a higher probability of success.

Unlike the UTSA, the DTSA includes a seizure provision that allows a court to issue an order to seize the allegedly stolen trade secret items (e.g., hard drives and flash drives containing trade secrets, software, hardware, and lists) in the defendant’s possession.  The plaintiff can request and receive an order for this seizure ex parte, which means without having to inform the defendant.  The goal is to allow recovery of the misappropriated items before the defendant can move, hide or destroy them.  Early recovery also can minimize the harm caused by the misappropriation.  The DTSA has numerous safeguards designed to avoid abuses of this seizure provision.  It also provides a cause of action for wrongful or excessive seizure.

Once misappropriation is proven, the DTSA provides for damages.  The Court can grant an injunction.  But if exceptional circumstances render an injunction inequitable, a court can order a reasonable royalty for the continued use of the trade secret.  The DTSA also provides for compensatory damages for either 1) actual loss of the trade secret and any unjust enrichment not compensated as part of the actual loss or 2) a reasonable royalty.  Exemplary damages up to two times the actual damages can be awarded for willful and malicious misappropriation.  For cases involving bad faith or willful misappropriation, a party can also recover attorneys’ fees.  It is important to note that under the DTSA, injunctive relief cannot be used to prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship merely based on the information the person knows.  Rather, an injunction must be based on evidence of actual or threatened misappropriation.  Further, an injunction preventing or limiting employment cannot conflict with an applicable state law prohibiting restraints on the practice of a lawful profession, trade, or business.  This limitation appears to recognize that certain states place limits on the applicability of non-compete agreements.  It is interesting to note that the White House also recently released a report criticizing certain types of non-compete agreements and state laws that broadly enforce them.

The DTSA also provides whistleblower immunity from liability for confidential disclosure of a trade secret to the government for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law or in a sealed court filing in a lawsuit.  The DTSA places the burden on employers to notify employees, including any individuals such as contractors and consultants, of these whistleblower immunity provisions.  Failure to do so comes with a penalty.  If an employer sues an employee for trade secret misappropriation, unless the employer has provided the employee with notice of the whistleblower immunity, the employer is prohibited from recovering attorneys’ fees and exemplary damages.  The notice must be in writing in any agreement governing the employee’s use of trade secrets or confidential information.

The DTSA will have an immediate impact on all businesses.  Every new or modified employment agreement and contract with a non-disclosure or confidentiality clause will need to be revised.  Further, trade secret protection only exists to the extent that reasonable efforts have been made to keep the information secret.  Don’t risk losing valuable intellectual property because you didn’t take the time to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, password protect accounts, encrypt data, train employees, mark documents as confidential, etc.  Take this opportunity to evaluate whether your company’s trade secrets are adequately protected and put into place additional safeguards as necessary.  While trade secrets can be extremely valuable, that value can evaporate instantly if the secret is disclosed.

Scott-Hervey-10-web

This isn’t just another tattoo-copyright infringement case.  This case raises an important lesson for all copyright claimants.

The backstory: Solid Oak is a licensing firm that represents the go to tattoo artists for NBA royalty, including LeBron James.  Solid Oak filed a lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive Software, the game publisher behind the popular “NBA 2K” basketball video game.  The lawsuit alleges that Take-Two  infringes the copyrights in six tattoos appearing on LeBron and other NBA players by depicting those players – tattoos and all – in the video game.   Early commentators on the case questioned the validity of Solid Oak’s case and commented on the applicability of fair use and other defenses.  Interestingly, Take-Two’s motion to dismiss does not focus on the merits of Solid Oak’s case, but rather focuses on Solid Oak’s damages claim; the motion attacks Solid Oak’s claim that it is entitled to statutory damages and attorney fees.

Section 412 of the Copyright Act addresses how and where an award of statutory damages and attorney fees are applicable. The section provides as follows:

In any action under this title…. no award of statutory damages or of attorney’s fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for….any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.

This means that where a work has been published, a copyright owner must have filed an application to register the work prior to an act of infringement or, if infringement occurs after publication,   within three months of its first publication in order to avail itself of statutory damages and attorney fees.   Where a work is infringed, if registration occurs later than three months after publication , the plaintiff may not collect statutory damages or attorney fees.

In the instant case, in its motion to dismiss Solid Oak’s damages and attorney fee claims, Take-Two claims that the alleged infringement occurred before the June/July 2015 registration dates. Take-Two notes that it depicted the NBA players and their tattoos in its NBA video games since at least 2013.   In opposing the motion, Solid Oak argues that its claims for statutory damages and attorney fees are properly pleaded since it filed its infringement claim within the three-year limitation period.  Solid Oak also contends that the infringement which occurred in Take-Two’s NBA 2K16 is a separate and discrete infringement.  Solid Oak alleges “Because Plaintiff is only suing for the wrong of the Defendants through their creation and release of the NBA 2K16 video game, well within the time afforded under the Copyright Act, and not for any earlier infringing acts, it is thus entirely proper for Plaintiff to seek statutory damages and/or attorneys’ fees based on Defendants’ infringement of properly registered copyrights”.

What Take-Two didn’t raise in its motion is that Solid Oak would still not be entitled to statutory damages or attorney fees because the infringement occurred after publication and registration was not made within 3 months of first publication.   The Copyright registration certificates attached to Solid Oak’s Complaint lists the date of first publication for each work.  These dates are years prior to the June/July 2015 registration dates.  Because registration was not made before infringement or within three months after the dates of first publication of each tattoo (as required by Section 412 of the Copyright Act), Solid Oak is clearly not entitled to either statutory damages or attorney fees.

The lesson to be learned here is that statutory damages and attorney fees are not available just because they are asked for; they must be earned by the timely filing of a registration certificate.  The failure to timely file (before infringement or if infringed, within three months of first publication) prevents a claimant from seeking statutory damages and attorney fees which may (as is likely the case here) strip a case of the majority of its value.

Audrey-Millemann-03_webOn April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir., August 2015) (“Akamai IV”), cert. denied, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2768.  The Court declined Limelight’s petition for review of a $46 million jury verdict against Limelight for patent infringement.  The jury had found Limelight liable for direct infringement of Akamai’s method patent, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed that judgment, ruling for Limelight.  In Akamai IV, however, the Federal Circuit had reinstated the jury’s verdict, establishing a new rule for direct infringement by “divided” (or “joint”) infringement.

The new rule of Akamai IV is that a defendant can be liable for direct infringement of a method claim when another party performs some of the steps of the method as long as the steps performed by others are attributable to the defendant.  According to the court, a defendant can be liable for direct infringement if the acts of the other party or parties can be attributed to the defendant through a joint enterprise or “when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner for timing of that performance.”  Akamai IV, supra, at 1023.  The court emphasized that its new rule is flexible and should be applied on a case-by-case basis, stating “other factual scenarios may arise” that would support a finding of attribution.  Id.  With its new rule, the Federal Circuit expressly overruled its prior cases and turned Limelight’s victory into a loss.

Limelight’s petition for certiorari argued that the Federal Circuit’s Akamai IV rule was too broad.  Many agreed with Limelight, but obviously the Supreme Court did not.

On April 22, 2016, within days after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Akamai IV, the Federal Circuit used Akamai IV to vacate a district court’s decision in favor of the defendants in another case involving divided infringement, Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7924.  In Mankes, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court based on the “broadened divided-infringement standard articulated by the en banc court in Akamai IV.”  Id. at *16.

In Mankes, the plaintiff owned a method patent for a reservation system in which the inventory was split between a local server and a remote Internet server.  Mankes sued Vivid Seats Ltd. and Fandango, LLC in the Eastern District of North Carolina for patent infringement.  The defendants’ business offered movie ticket reservations and used both an Internet system and local movie theaters’ systems.  Fandango and Vivid Seats did not perform all of the steps of Mankes’ claimed method, but together with the local movie theaters, all of the steps of the method claim were performed.

The Federal Circuit explained that Mankes had gotten caught in the changing law of divided patent infringement, as both the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court issued multiple decisions in Akamai v. Limelight.  In early 2015, the Mankes district court had granted judgment on the pleadings for Fandango and Vivid Seats on the grounds that Mankes had not sufficiently alleged direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(a).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s judgment on the pleadings against Mankes was based on the prior, narrower rule of divided infringement that had been superseded by the new rule of Akamai IV.  Mankes, supra, at *18.  The appellate court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case.  The court noted that Mankes had alleged that some of the method steps (the Internet server) were performed by Fandango and Vivid Seats, while other steps (the local server) were performed by local movie theaters.  The defendants had not disputed that all of the method steps were performed; rather, they contended that the local theaters’ actions could not be attributed to them.  Id. at *16.

The Federal Circuit held that Mankes should have a chance to prove his case under the new rule of divided infringement, stating that Mankes may be able to allege facts that fall within Akamai IV’s new rule “or might otherwise justify finding direct-infringement liability for divided infringement.”  Id. at *20.  The court emphasized that it is not “appropriate to rule out at this stage any particular theory of direct infringement, including the joint-enterprise theory and the possibility of other bases of attribution recognized in Akamai IV.”  Id.  Thus, the court left the door wide open for Mankes to argue that his case falls within a flexible application of the Akamai IV rule.  After all, if Akamai could win after three tries, Mankes might win on his second time around.