Syngenta Update: Litigation Results in National Settlement of $1.5 Billion

May 15, 2018:  By now you have probably heard that a settlement has been reached with Syngenta over the losses it caused corn farmers, and others, by commercializing the Viptera and Duracade traits prior to receiving approval from China, which caused a massive trade disruption, ultimately resulting in China’s decision to reject all US shipments of corn into that country.

We have diligently pursued the claims against Syngenta on behalf of our clients through the taking of almost 100 depositions, the review of millions of pages of documents, the hiring of experts in the field, and arguing numerous motions before the court in the Southern District of Illinois, which is where most of our cases were filed.  Other litigation was going on in the District Court of Kansas, as well as state court cases in Minnesota.  Collectively, all this litigation against Syngenta over the course of a few years resulted in a national settlement of $1.5 Billion.

This entire litigation has been settled as a national class action.  If you are a corn producer who has reported his or her corn production to the USDA using the FSA-578 form, you should receive what is called a Notice of Class Action Settlement around mid-May 2018.  It is IMPORTANT that you read this information carefully. This notice will come to you from the Court overseeing the class action settlement, the United States District Court in Kansas. This notice should go out to all eligible corn farmers.  This notice will explain everything about the settlement, how you might be able to file a claim for settlement benefits, the deadline for filing claims, how you can exclude yourself from the settlement, and other important information.  We urge you to read this carefully, even though it will be a long and complicated document.

When you receive the notice, you will also find a claim form attached.

YOU WILL NOT GET ANY MONEY FROM THIS SETTLEMENT UNLESS YOU COMPLETE A CLAIM FORM

We cannot say it any more clearly than that.  If you want to recover anything in this deal, you must fill out the claim form, and it must be filled out completely.  If you wish to file a claim in this settlement, you must do so by October 12, 2018.  Again, the notice will explain the claim form in detail, and should answer any questions you have about it, for example that the FSA 578 form(s) you have filed will govern the number of acres during the marketing years 2013-2018 that you can claim in the settlement, what you can do if you believe the FSA 578 form was incorrect at any point for the 2013-2017 marketing years, etc.

It is also important to know that, at this point, we have no idea how much any corn producers will receive in this class action settlement.  In fact, we have no role whatsoever in how much any corn producers will receive in the settlement.  All of that is governed by the master class action settlement agreement that will be overseen by the attorneys involved in the class action settlement and claims administrators appointed by the District Court of Kansas. The final number will not be known until every claim has been submitted.  We do know that none of the money in the settlement (the $1.5 Billion) will be returned to Syngenta, so all money that will be available to corn farmers, and others covered under the settlement, will divided up among all the eligible farmers, and others covered by the settlement, who have filed claims.

This settlement is voluntary.  You do not have to take it.  If you choose to do so, you can exclude, or “opt out” of the settlement.  If you wish to opt out of the settlement, you must do so by August 10, 2018.  You can then pursue your own lawsuit against Syngenta or any other responsible party.  We currently have no plans to represent producers who wish to opt out of the settlement in any future litigation against Syngenta arising out of this matter.  If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, it will be binding on you, and whether you file a claim for settlement benefits or not, you will be releasing any claims against Syngenta you may have that arose out of its decision to commercialize Viptera and Duracade.

One last thing:  Please pay attention to the deadlines in the notice you will be receiving.  There will be a deadline to file your claim for settlement benefits.  If you miss the deadline, you will most likely be unable to receive any money at all.

If you have any additional questions concerning the settlement, you may contact the settlement administrator via telephone at 1-833-567-CORN (1-833-567-2676), or write to them at:

Corn Seed Settlement Claims Administrator

P.O. Box 26226

Richmond, VA 23260.

 

You may also go to www.CornSeedSettlment.com for additional information.

 

 

The post Syngenta Update: Litigation Results in National Settlement of $1.5 Billion appeared first on .

Three factors to consider when selecting a nursing home facility

Did you know that about 70% of Americans will need some type of long-term care at some point after the age of 65? In fact, by the year 2030, 2.3 million Americans ages 65 and older are projected to require some type of nursing home care. Even if medical care is not required for a loved one, long-term care also refers to a range of services and support with everyday tasks such as bathing, dressing, eating, moving around and other self care. With a high chance that you or a loved one will need to spend time in a nursing home, it is important to know what critical factors to consider when selecting a caring and qualified facility. A good place to start is to review the 3 categories Medicare uses to create their nursing home ratings:

1. Number of staff: Although nursing homes are required to provide enough staff to adequately care for residents, no federal standard exists to determine the staff to patient ratio. Although Medicare’s rating takes into account that some residents require more time and care, a good practice is to find out the numbers for yourself. Ask the facility for the number of full and part-time staff and how many hours they work per week, as well as the number of residents they have when they are at full capacity. Once you have these numbers, you can determine about how many hours per week or per day are available to be dedicated to caring for you or your loved one.
2. Health inspection details: Standard onsite health inspections of all nursing facilities are conducted by state health agencies for compliance on an annual basis unless an additional inspection and investigation is triggered by a complaint. The inspection reviews all compliance and quality requirements for a range of criteria including how medications are managed, how staff interact with residents, and how residents interact with each other. Medicare’s score in this category is based on the last three years of onsite inspections. Although this score is a valuable resource, it should be considered supplementary to a personal onsite visit, tour and discussion with the facility when making a decision.
3. Quality measures: Nine different clinical and physical measures for nursing home residents create the quality measure score. The data for this measure is collected from residents at specified intervals during their stay and includes items such as mobility changes, flu shots administered, and incidence of pressure sores. The Medicare rating for the quality measures represents how well the facility is taking care of its residents.

Be sure to always schedule an onsite visit and be prepared with questions as well a list of services you or your loved one requires. Visit more than one facility and compare the benefits and services offered to each other. To compare how each facility is rated for quality by Medicare, visit www.medicare.gov/nursinghomecompare. When looking for a facility that will be responsible for providing round the clock care for you or a loved one, doing research is vital to find out how prepared they are to be the best fit for what you need.

If you or your loved one need help regarding nursing facility abuse, please contact one of our attorneys. In any situation where a patient or resident of a nursing home is seriously injured as a result of the nursing home’s inadequate care, the patient should seek the advice of an attorney. It is difficult to have a nursing home compensate you fairly for your injuries without the help of an attorney.

Even if you feel you are not ready to file a suit, consult one of our qualified lawyers as soon as possible so that you will know your options. We do not charge any fees upfront. In fact, we will only charge attorney’s fees if we obtain a financial settlement for you. If you don’t win, we won’t get paid a legal fee. Call us today for your free case evaluation 1.800.241.9779.

Click here for more information.

The post Three factors to consider when selecting a nursing home facility appeared first on .

HGD Hits US Gov’t With $100M Class Action Over AIA Reviews

By Matthew Bultman

Law360 (May 11, 2018, 8:53 PM EDT) — The U.S. government has been hit with a $100 million lawsuit alleging the cancellation of patents in America Invents Act reviews represents an unconstitutional taking of property rights.

The proposed class action was filed in the Court of Federal Claims on Wednesday by Christy Inc., an Oklahoma company that had claims in its vacuum cleaner patent found inv

alid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following a challenge from Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.
Christy argues this violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without fair compensation. It is also bringing a claim for breach of contract. The proposed class would include anyone who has had claims in a patent invalidated in an AIA review.

“Somebody must be held responsible for decimating these duly issued patent rights through [inter partes reviews] and these other post-grant AIA proceedings,” said James McDonough III​ of Heninger Garrison Davis LLC, an attorney for Christy. “Since the government is the one that claims to have created this whole mess in the first place, then it should be the one that has to pay.”

The lawsuit, which seeks compensation for expected royalties related to the patents, as well as various fees paid to the USPTO, states the amount owed to the potential class is “greater than $100 million.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, of which the PTAB is a part, does not comment on litigation.

The 2011 AIA created IPRs and other reviews proceedings, which were designed to be a more efficient, lower-cost alternative to district court litigation for determining a patent’s validity. The lawsuit comes less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s ruledIPRs do not violate the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial.

Matthew Rizzolo of Ropes & Gray LLP, who is not involved with Christy’s case, said patent owners filing lawsuits against the U.S. government wasn’t a surprising next step following Oil States. He predicted there would be such cases earlier this month.

“For me, this is one of the places I thought they would turn,” he said.

In its complaint, Christy said AIA reviews have decimated the value of patents, and the cost to inventors and the overall economy has been “staggering.” Meanwhile the PTAB was a “money printing machine” for the USPTO, it said, estimating tens of millions of dollars have been paid in AIA review filing fees.

“Also at the center of this lawsuit is the public (and shocking) admission by the USPTO that [AIA reviews] are designed to invalidate patents that were erroneously granted in the first instance,” Christy wrote, citing comments made during the Oil States case.

Christy argues a contract exists in which the USPTO will issue a patent in exchange for fees paid by the owner. It contends the USPTO shouldn’t be allowed to keep those fees if it fixes its mistakes and the patents are found invalid.

Similarly, Christy contends patent owners shouldn’t be forced to defend these patents in AIA reviews — and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys fees in the process.

“But for the fact that the patents were issued (and a property right granted in the first place), the patent owners would not have invested the time, resources and money into the subject inventions and the monetization of those inventions, whether through product development or otherwise.

Christy is represented by James McDonough III​, Jonathan R. Miller, Travis E. Lynch, Timothy C. Davis, W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Christopher B. Hood and Anna M. Carroll of Heninger Garrison Davis LLC.

Counsel information for the government wasn’t yet available.

The case is Christy Inc. v. United States of America, case number 18-657, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

–Editing by Bruce Goldman.

The post HGD Hits US Gov’t With $100M Class Action Over AIA Reviews appeared first on .

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC Files Class Action Against the United States Patent and Trademark Office For “Taking”

ATLANTA, GA: (May 10, 2018) – Attorneys from Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC’s class action and intellectual property group filed a class action complaint this week against the United States and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for damages to Christy, Inc. and a class of other patent holders whose property was taken by the USPTO without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

This unlawful “taking” occurred, according to the lawsuit, when the USPTO implemented post-grant proceedings from the America Invents Act (“AIA”), including Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) proceedings (together, “PGPs”). These PGPs have been used by the USPTO to invalidate patents at an alarming rate, and Christy, Inc. and other patent holders seek just compensation for the taking of patent owners’ recognized patent property rights by the United States. More specifically, the lawsuit seeks money damages for the value of the patent claims, including any expected royalty and other payments for use of the patented technologies, the issuance and maintenance fees paid, and any investments made in the patented technologies.

The case also seeks damages for the United States’ breach of contract for its failure to maintain in force the subject patent claims, including the recovery of attorney fees expended defending those same patents in PGPs. And because the United States contends these patents were issued “erroneously” by the USPTO in the first place, Christy, Inc. contends all issue and maintenance fees paid were exacted by the government and should be returned.

Any individual or entity that owns a patent for which one or more claims were invalidated in an IPR or PGR proceeding is eligible for the class action. If you would like to join this class action, please contact us to discuss your options.

Case Name:  CHRISTY, INC. V. USA

Case Number:  1:18-cv-00657-MMS

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, is a national law firm, and our attorneys defend valuable intellectual property rights for our clients. To determine if you should file suit, consult one of our qualified lawyers as soon as possible to understand your options.  We do not charge any fees upfront. In fact, we will only charge attorney’s fees if we obtain a financial settlement for you. If you do not win, we get nothing.  Call us today for your free case evaluation 1.855.228.1929 or visit www.hgdlawfirm.com/USPTO-Class-Action or www.usptoclassaction.com

 

The post Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC Files Class Action Against the United States Patent and Trademark Office For “Taking” appeared first on .