IP Legal News

Posted on December 8, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Here are several blog posts that are worth your time on this Monday morning:

  • At Deliberations, Anne Reed warns of six mistakes that can derail voir dire -- click here to read the post.  Anyone who follows Deliberations knows that when Reed discusses voir dire, everyone should listen.
     
  • The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Tafas v. Dudas last week.  Here is some of the commentary:  Patent Baristas; Patently-O; & PLI Blog.
     
  • At IP ADR Blog, Victoria Pynchon offers to arbitrate your patent case and says under expedited AAA commercial rules you can get a decision within 45 days of selecting the arbitrator -- click here to read the post.  Amazing, I may try that in the dispute resolution clause of my next license agreement.
     
  • Anyone who read his 2007 NYC Marathon Blawg Review will not be surprised that Eric Turkewitz's post-Thanksgiving Blawg Review last week at his New York Personal Injury Law Blog was one of the best of the year -- click here to read it.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence Must Be Newly Discovered to Vacate Arbitration Award

Posted on June 11, 2008 by R. David Donoghue

Nilssen v. MagneTek, Inc., No. 05 C 2933, 2008 WL 1774984 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan confirmed an arbitration award and denied plaintiff's motion to vacate it. The arbitrator awarded plaintiffs (collectively "Nilssen") approximately $23M for defendant Magnetek's patent infringement. MagneTek argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement did not expressly confer the right to confirm the arbitration award. But the Court held that the Seventh Circuit only required that the right to confirm be inferred from the arbitration agreement. While the arbitration agreement did not explicitly allow confirmation, the parties evidenced their intent to allow confirmation:

  • The parties' American Arbitration Association ("AAA") submission provided for confirmation;
  • The parties agreed to be bound by the AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules which provide for court confirmation; and
  • MagneTek's post-arbitration press release said that the parties conducted binding arbitration which was not subject to appeal.

MagneTek also argued that certain prior art patents were new evidence which required vacating the award. But the Court held that MagneTek was aware of the patents during the arbitration. In fact, at least one patent was marked as an exhibit in the arbitration. Furthermore, MagneTek's post-arbitration prior art search could have been performed before the arbitration. And the Court would not reward MagneTek's late search with a second shot at invalidity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,