As previously discussed, today the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for Bilski v. Kappos, a high-stakes software patent case (the transcript is here). In Bilski, the Federal Circuit rejected patent claims involving a method of hedging risks in commodities trading. The U.S. Supreme Court is now asked to decide whether the Patent Act contemplates the patentability of business methods –which include software patents. Links to the case documents can be found at the SCOTUS wiki (here) and a comprehensive commentary of today’s arguments by Gene Quinn at the IP Watchdog is here. Technorati Tags: law, intellectual property, software patents, business methods, Bilski

Hays County, Texas just launched a voluntary mediation program for family and civil disputes. The Hays County commissioners signed a contract with the Central Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution (CTADR), a local ADR firm that will provide the mediation services. The mediation program is effective from October 1, 2009 until September 30, 2010 and applies to disputes between neighbors, employers and employees, consumers and merchants, landlords and tenants, among others. Judges may refer cases to mediation as well. Find out more: County Contracts with ADR Firm, Newstreamz, Oct. 8, 2009. Hays Mediation Option Begins OperationToday, San Marcos Daily Record, Oct. 1, 2009. County Aims for Dispute Resolution System, Newstreamz, Sept. 8, 2009. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation

In contrast to our discussion of Koricic v. Beverly Enters. in which the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a son lacked authority to sign an arbitration agreement on behalf of his mother, a recent trial court in Florida ruled in Christenson, v. The Abbey Rehabilitation and Nursing Center that a husband had apparent authority to sign a nursing home arbitration agreement. From Florida Arbitration Law.com: In Christenson, the validity of an arbitration agreement was at issue when a wife was admitted to a nursing home and orally gave her husband an unambiguous, all inclusive general grant of authority to sign “a bunch of papers” on her behalf, without limitation, and created a situation where the people at the nursing home reasonably believed the husband had such authority. Read more here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, legislation, Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act of 2009

Within the five opinions released by the Texas Supreme Court on October 30, Chrysler Insurance Co. v. Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc., (Texas 2009) (No. 08?0780) caught our attention. The case deals with a dispute over insurance coverage to pay for a $1.5 million defamation arbitration award granted to Noe Martinez, a former employee of Greenspoint. The award was confirmed by a district court in Harris County back in 2002. See Martinez. v. Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc., No. 14-02-00349-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 7448 (the appeal was abandoned after Greenspoint settled with Martinez for $1.75 million). In the present opinion, the Texas Supreme Court said that: The defamation claim arose from remarks and accusations directed at Noe Martinez, the inventory control manager at Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc. Greenspoint’s general manager, comptroller, and used car sales manager defamed and disparaged Martinez, referring to him as a “thieving spic beaner” and a “thieving Mexican,” and accusing him of stealing cars and other criminal activity. Martinez was eventually fired and replaced by the general manager’s nephew. Martinez thereafter sued Greenspoint, the three managers, and Greenspoint’s chief executive officer, Jack Apple, Jr., alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The dispute was submitted to binding arbitration, which resulted in an award of approximately $1.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Martinez. The arbitrators found that the individuals who engaged in the campaign to defame and injure Martinez were Greenspoint vice-principals. Don Cruse at the Supreme Court of Texas Blog has written an excellent analysis of this case: This case is about construing an insurance policy that excluded defamation claims were the insured had knowledge that the statements were false when made. The wrinkle is that the insured was a corporation — and the people with knowledge were not high-ranking officers. Nonetheless, the corporation was subjected to a defamation claim in an arbitration proceeding. Its insurer denied coverage. The fascinating part of this opinion is its discussion of a category of corporate officials who — although not truly “officers” — nonetheless are important enough that their personal knowledge can be imputed back to the corporation itself. Continue reading here. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, Texas Supreme Court