1. Applicable Law

1.1.1 On 1 January 2011 Switzerland faced the dawn of a new era in litigation. Due to its federal state structure, until this date civil procedural law was regulated on a cantonal level with 26 civil procedure codes. Since 1 January 2011, the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC) replaces the cantonal codes.

1.1.2 Interim measures are mainly governed by the CPC. In order to determine whether provisions other than the CPC are (also) applicable to an interim measure, the applicant has to check two issues:   

The Labor and Employment Group at Hogan Lovells is proud to have contributed to the 2020 version of the firm’s Doing Business in the United States Guide. The Guide provides a high-level overview of the laws and practices important to foreign investors interested in operating in the United States, including recent legal developments.

The Federal Circuit considered choice-of-law, bankruptcy, and contract law in vacating the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2018-2400 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).

The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business.1 Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S. This publication provides an overview of trade control issues that could limit a non-U.S.

The United States Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision issued on May 20, 2019, settled a split among the Circuits in holding a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement under Bankruptcy Code Section 365 did not rescind the rights of the trademark licensee under the agreement. In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Court adopted what is known as the “rejection-as-breach” approach, which holds that post-contract rejection a trademark licensee still retains its rights under applicable state law.

The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Provider Meds, L.L.C. is a stark reminder to chapter 7 trustees that they have an affirmative obligation to examine a debtor’s assets. A trustee’s failure to conduct a sufficient and timely examination may deprive the estate of significant value.

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance claim for a “blocking right” and right of first refusal under a patent transfer agreement, addressing the district court’s proper exclusion of expert testimony on whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the relevant transfer. In re: Teltronics, Inc., Case No. 16-16140 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2018) (Kaplan, J).

Although it may be difficult to define precisely what an “executory contract” is (with the Bankruptcy Code providing no definition), I think most bankruptcy lawyers feel how the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously felt about obscenity--we know one when we see it. Determining that a patent license was executory in the first place was an issue in the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v.

The Bottom Line

The Fifth Circuit recently held in RPD Holdings, L.L.C. v. Tech Pharmacy Services (In re Provider Meds, L.L.C.), No. 17-1113 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018), that a patent license that was not specifically listed on the debtors’ bankruptcy schedules was automatically deemed rejected where it was not assumed within 60 days of the cases’ conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7.

What Happened?

A license agreement “deemed rejected by operation of law” could not be acquired under a court-approved asset purchase agreement, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 29, 2018. In re Provider Meds LLC, 2018 WL 5317445, *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018). Although the acquirer claimed “that it purchased a patent license from [the] debtors in bankruptcy sales of their estates,” the court explained that “a rejected executory contract … could not have been transferred by the bankruptcy sales in question … .” Id., at *1.