Lawyers and intellectual property groups are generally bullish on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s idea for a small-claims process for patent disputes. With little fanfare, the PTO published a request for comments in the Federal Register last week. The PTO wants comments by March 18, 2013, on “whether there is a need and desire for this type of proceeding” and what form it should take. Continue reading here (free registration is required to view article)

Continuing our 2012 Year-End Highlights series, we present today noteworthy arbitration cases heard by the Texas Supreme Court. In Bison Building Materials, Ltd. v. Lloyd K. Aldridge, No.06-1084, _S.W.3d __ (Tex. April 20, 2012) the Texas Supreme Court ruled on appellate court jurisdiction over order confirming arbitration award in part and vacating the award in part. Read more here. In In re Lopez, 372 S.W. 3d 174 (June 8, 2012) the Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief because the trial court abused its discretion by incorrectly applying section 171.096(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code instead of applying 171.096(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Read more here. Stay tuned!

During 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the following arbitration cases: In Volvo Trucks N. America, Inc. v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc. No. 09-30782, (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2012) the Fifth Circuit held that a district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Read more here.   In Carey v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc. No. 10-20845 (5th Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) the Fifth Circuit held that an agreement was illusory because the defendant retained the unilateral right to modify or terminate the arbitration provision at any time. Read more here.   In Ballew v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., No. 11-20279, (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2012) the Fifth Circuit held that an employee pension plan falls within the scope of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) and is subject to its mandatory arbitration procedures. Read more here.   In Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co. No. 11-30669 (5th Cir. March 9, 2012) ConocoPhillips Company (“Conoco”) the Fifth Circuit Interprets the Meaning of a Reasoned Arbitral Award. Read more here.   In Reed v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. No. 11-50509 (5th Cir. May 18, 2012) the Fifth Circuit ruled that an arbitrator exceeded his powers by ordering class arbitration without a sufficient contractual or legal basis for doing so. Read more here.   In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 716, AFL-CIO v. Albemarle Corporation, Inc., No. 11-20883 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012) the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order to compel arbitration finding that it was the arbitrator’s task to evaluate the scope of the grievance and the CBA. Read more here.   In Petrofac, Inc., v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company, No. 1-20141 (5th Cir. July 17, 2012), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling confirming an arbitration award. Read more here.   In BP Exploration Libya Ltd., v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd., v. Noble North Africa Ltd. No. 11-20547 (5th Cir. July 30, 2012), the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court exceeded its authority under 9 U.S.C. § 5 by not limiting the number of arbitrators appointed to the number agreed to by the parties in the arbitration agreement. Read more here.   In Dealer Computer Servs. v. Michael Motor Co., No. 11-20053 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012) the Fifth Circuit ruled that arbitrator bias issue must be raised before the arbitration award is rendered. Read more here.   In Amber Ibarra v. United Parcel Service, No. 11-50714 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2012), the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred when it concluded that UPS’s CBA required Title VII claims to be brought under the CBA’s grievance process. Read more here.   In Sabrina Kay Taylor v. University of Phoenix/Apollo Group, No. 11-20681 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 2012), the Fifth Circuit found no reversible error with District Court’s judgment that affirmed an arbitration award in a disability discrimination case. Read more here.   In Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., v. Garrett, et al, No. 11-20736 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012) the Fifth Circuit reversed the vacatur of a FINRA Award because it disagreed with the district court’s finding that the award was procured by fraud, or in the alternative, that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers. Read more here. Stay tuned!  

During 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided several cases related to arbitration: On January 10, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down CompuCredit Corporation v. Greenwood. The issue in CompuCredit was whether claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act are subject to arbitration. The Court held that because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. On January 23, 2012, Petitioner Christopher Wanken filed a writ of certiorari (Docket No. 11-939) with the U.S. Supreme Court against Respondents Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. and its branch manager, John Dwight Wanken, seeking review of the Fifth Circuit decision on Wanken v. Wanken, No. 11-102219, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20014 (5th Cir. Tex. Sept. 29, 2011). The petition was denied on April 13, 2012. Read more. On February 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded orders of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia which held unenforceable all predispute arbitration agreements that apply to claims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes. See Marmet Health Care Center, Inc., et al. v. Clayton Brown, et al., Case Nos. 11–391 and 11–394, 565 U. S. ____ (Feb. 21, 2012). Read more. On November 9, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hearAmerican Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant (Docket No. 12-133). The issue is whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the “federal substantive law of arbitrability,” to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal-law claim. Read more. On November 26, 2012, in Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Eddie Lee Howard, et al, 568 U.S. ___ (Nov. 26, 2012), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision because the decision ignored a basic tenet of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and did not allow the arbitrator to rule on the validity of the contracts. Read more. On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter (Docket No. 12-135). In the case below, Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 675 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. N.J. 2012) the Third Circuit had held that that a party could not be compelled under the Federal Arbitration Act, to submit to class arbitration unless there was a contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to do so. Read more. Stay tuned!