July 17, 2019

Archives for May 30, 2013

Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute Kicks Off Thursday, May 30, 2013

CLE in Colorado’s 11th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute begins this Thursday, May 30, at the Westin Westminster hotel. Topics to be discussed include mobile apps, Apple v. Samsung, crowdsourcing, and the America Invents Act.

The America Invents Act changed the landscape of intellectual property law. Inter partes review is becoming a staple of prosecutors’ practices. First-to-file provisions became effective March 16, 2013, which was a big change from America’s previous system. There were many other changes to intellectual property law as a result of the America Invents Act, and Daniel Sherwinter, Esq., of Marsh, Fischmann & Breyfogle, illustrated the changes through a quick summary guide published by CBA-CLE. This summary guide is published here as a courtesy of CBA-CLE.

The America Invents Act – A Quick Guide

If you haven’t already registered for the IP Institute, you can still register at the event at the Westin Westminster, or click here for the online registration page.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 5/30/13

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and 25 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Statute Unclear About Sealing Records When Traffic and Non-Traffic Offenses Charged Together

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Petition of R.C. on Thursday, May 30, 2013.

Petition to Seal Records—Traffic Offenses—Non-Traffic Offenses.

Petitioner appealed a district court’s order denying his petition to seal records of non-traffic offense charges brought against him that were subsequently dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order and remanded the case with directions.

Petitioner was charged with possession of marijuana (a class 2 petty offense), possession of drug paraphernalia (a class 2 petty offense), and unsafe lane change. After successful completion of a juvenile diversion program, all of the charges were dismissed with prejudice.

Petitioner argued that the court erred when it denied his petition to seal his records after all of the charges against him were dismissed with prejudice. Although CRS § 24-72-308 specifically prohibits the sealing of traffic infractions, the statute does not appear to contemplate petitions to seal records for cases that include both traffic offenses and non-traffic offenses. Therefore, if the district court “finds that the harm to the privacy of the petitioner or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences to the petitioner outweigh the public interest in retaining the record” as to the drug offenses, it should seal the criminal records as to those charges. Therefore, the order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Police Officer Injured at Work Only Entitled to One Year of Full Pay Disability Leave Under City Charter

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Miller v. City & County of Denver on Thursday, May 23, 2013.

Disability Compensation—Police Officers—Line-of-Duty Injury Leave.

In this dispute over disability compensation, plaintiffs Daryl Miller and the Denver Police Protective Association (DPPA) appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant, the City and County of Denver (City). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

On July 15, 2005, Miller, a lieutenant in the Denver Police Department, was injured in an automobile accident in the course and scope of his employment. As a result of his injuries, surgeries, and medical treatment associated with the accident, he did not work for five months. Thereafter, for four years, he worked intermittently either at his position or in modified work functions.

Miller was entitled to disability benefits under the City Charter and the City’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the DPPA. On March 8, 2010, the City determined that he had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with respect to his injuries, and discontinued giving Miller line-of-duty injury leave at full salary after one year.

Miller and the DPPA contended that the district court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment, because he was entitled to line-of-duty injury leave at full salary beyond one year. Here, both City Charter § 9.6.14 and Article 22.2 of the CBA relate to the same subject: disability benefits for a police officer who becomes “incapacitated from service” or “unable to perform [his or her] duties” because of “injuries received” in the “performance” or “discharge” of his or her “duties.” Charter provision § 9.6.14 awards the injured officer “full pay for such time as [he or she] is temporarily incapacitated,” and CBA Article 22.2 awards “any necessary leave of absence not to exceed one year at his [or her] full salary.”

Unlike § 9.6.14, Article 22.2 makes no distinction between benefits for temporary and permanent disabilities. Therefore, an injured officer is entitled to a maximum of one year of disability leave at full salary, without regard to the temporary or permanent nature of his or her disability. Because the record discloses that Miller received 178.25 hours above his allocated full-salary disability leave, the district court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the City was entitled to deduct his excess disability leave from his other accrued leave time.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Dismissal of Negligence Per Se Claim Reversed

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Howard v. Zimmer, Inc. on Wednesday, May 29, 2013.

Howard filed suit against a knee implant manufacturer after his knee implant failed to bond properly. The Tenth Circuit had certified a question regarding the interplay of negligence per se and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. That court answered “Oklahoma law allows private individuals to maintain a parallel claim for negligence per se based on violation of a federal regulation whose enforcement lies with a governmental entity.” Therefore, the court reversed dismissal and remanded.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 5/28/13

On Tuesday, May 28, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

Francisco v. Susano

Tarantola v. Cushing Memorial Hospital

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.