The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in Oil States Energy Services LLC v Greene's Energy Group LLC, the constitutionality and structure of inter partes review hangs in the balance. In 2011 Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which established the existence of inter partes review proceedings. Inter partes reviews allow private third parties to challenge certain patent validity issues before the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Can marijuana businesses receive federal copyright protection?

Yes. The requirements for registration with the U.S. Copyright Office are that the work is original, creative and fixed in some form of expression. These requirements do not prevent a marijuana business from registering its works, such as pamphlets, instructional videos or even artwork.

Can marijuana businesses receive any patent protection?

Google stepped closer to acquiring Nortel’s portfolio of 6,000 telecommunications, wireless and Internet patents on Monday as courts in the U.S. and Canada approved the web search giant’s “stalking horse” offer of $900 million for those patents. Announced on April 4, Google’s offer effectively constitutes the opening bid in an auction that will be decided at a joint hearing of the U.S. and Canadian courts on June 30. The auction also opens the latest chapter in the ongoing bankruptcy process for Nortel.

In this week's Alabama Law Weekly update, we report on two decisions. The first case is from the Alabama Supreme Court and considers whether an employee, who was a significant contributor in the creation of intellectual property patented by his employer, is entitled to a portion of the income that the employer received in a subsequent stock sale. The second decision is from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and considers the factors for bankruptcy courts to analyze when approving releases of claims against non-debtors, such as officers and directors of reorganized entities. 

The Supreme Court of the United States declined[1] to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Jaffé v.

BACKGROUND

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides mechanisms for dealing with cases of cross-border insolvency. On Oct. 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., denied review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, upholding a bankruptcy court’s determination that a foreign debtor in a Chapter 15 case could not terminate its intellectual property licenses under German law, where such action would deprive the licensees of the debtor’s U.S.

Since 1988, section 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code has protected licensees of intellectual property from having their licenses rejected by an insolvent licensor.  While this statute addresses certain contingencies and exceptions, the basic rule is that an insolvent licensor is not free to terminate (or ‘reject’) an intellectual property license the way it is free to shed itself of other contracts.