As the dust settles from 2019, we can now clearly see what some of the most influential Supreme Court cases of 2019 were, with a specific eye on what affects business owners the most.
- Freedom of Information Act
Businesses routinely have to provide information to the government for various compliance reasons, and often give a trove of information in bids for government contracts. It is thought, that at the time of handing the government this information, that the information is kept private. After all, some of what is disclosed is extremely sensitive, and can have wide ranging consequences for companies in the ultra-competitive environment. Competitors can easily use the information gleaned to outmaneuver a victim company.
What about the fact that government is supposed to be open and transparent? Nearly every city, county, state, (and nationally) there are government transparency laws that make any information available for disclosure upon request.
This is why, on a bipartisan basis, the Supreme Court affirmed in 2019 that if a business record is given to the government under the premise of privacy or considered confidential that it shall remain private.
- “Scandalous Trademarks”
If a trademarkable intellectual property is considered offensive, immoral, scandalous, rude, grotesque, disgusting it was thought that these IP could not be protected. However, a company named “FUCT” was first denied by the federal government, but then granted their trademark after the Supreme Court backed “FUCT” up. This was done on a mostly bipartisan basis.
- Arbitration protected
Companies have been accused of “arbitration abuse” against consumers and employees for years. Disputes that might typically be handled in the court of law are sent to private arbitration courts, where there might be an economic incentive for an arbitration court to continue working with a large business.
In a complicated challenge to this system, it was resolved that arbitration agreements are still valid in many cases, however, there cannot be ‘arbitration classes’, but rather each arbitration case must be resolved individually.
- Sales of licensed patents can invalidate the patent
Companies who work with products and patents should know the case of Helsinn Healthcare v Teva Pharmaceuticals. An inventor held a patent on an invention, but then sold it to a third party. Despite the fact that the third party was obligated to keep the invention confidential, the fact that sale occurred invalidates the patent.
- Companies that perform ‘community services’ are cannot be treated as government entities.
In the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp, a provider of public access television channels, a plaintiff believed that the company acted in a way that was not congruent with the constitution. The Supreme Court decided that did not matter whatsoever, as the corporation was privately held and not a government entity.