There are a number of health and welfare plan action items to address as 2016 closes and 2017 begins. In addition, many employers are wondering how these action items may be affected by the November election results. We have addressed these action items and the possible effects of the election results in our HB Health and Welfare blog here, including: Affordable Care Act (?Ç£ACA?Ç¥) reporting for 2016 (i.e. Forms 1094/1095) and related issues; Issues that may impact plan design and/or written materials, such as the ACA, recent wellness regulations, and federal agency enforcement activity; and Certain other reporting and communication requirements.
There are a number of health and welfare plan action items to address as 2016 closes and 2017 begins. The election results have created uncertainty in the minds of many regarding whether certain legal obligations will remain in effect (or be enforced). Employers should assume Affordable Care Act (ACA) and other existing obligations will continue unless and until repealed or otherwise affected by subsequent guidance. It is not clear how soon change may occur after the inauguration on January 20, 2017. Based on the promises by both President-Elect Trump and the Republican Party to repeal and/or replace the ACA, we expect that revenue related ACA requirements, such as the employer shared responsibility provisions, are more likely to be affected during 2017 than other ACA requirements like the preventive services mandates that merely impact plan design. Other changes, such as those suggested by the President-Elect in his healthcare position statement or… Continue Reading
Extension of Due Dates for 2016 Individual Statements Under Affordable Care Act Information Reporting
In Notice 2016-70 (the ?Ç£Notice?Ç¥), the IRS extended the due date, from January 31, 2017 to March 2, 2017, for employers (including so-called ?Ç£applicable large employers?Ç¥), insurers, and other providers of ?Ç£minimum essential coverage?Ç¥ in 2016 (?Ç£Reporting Entities?Ç¥) to furnish statements to individuals on IRS Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act?ÇÖs information reporting requirements (the ?Ç£ACA Reporting Requirements?Ç¥). The Notice also extends the IRS?ÇÖs transition relief from penalties that Reporting Entities could otherwise incur for incorrect or incomplete information reported on their 2016 information returns. To obtain this relief, a Reporting Entity must show that it made a good faith effort to comply with the ACA Reporting Requirements in furnishing statements to individuals and filing with the IRS. Notably, the Notice does not extend the due date under the ACA Reporting Requirements for Reporting Entities to file their 2016 information returns with the IRS. Accordingly, that… Continue Reading
The following non-exhaustive list describes year-end action items and the annual notices for retirement plans that generally must be distributed within a reasonable time prior to the start of the plan year. For calendar year plans, providing the notices outlined below by December 1 will meet this requirement in most cases. Safe Harbor 401(k) Notice: For 401(k) plans that are designed to comply with the safe harbor requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. Automatic Enrollment Notice: For any plan that includes automatic enrollment provisions. Qualified Automatic Contribution Arrangement Notice: For plans that are designed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code?ÇÖs qualified automatic contribution provisions. Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement Notice: For plans that are designed to comply with the Internal Revenue Code?ÇÖs eligible automatic contribution provisions. Qualified Default Investment Alternative (?Ç£QDIA?Ç¥) Notice: For plans with participant-directed investments that include a QDIA in which a participant?ÇÖs account will be invested if… Continue Reading
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 15-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) is the latest in a series of recent decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a district court?ÇÖs finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. ?º 101.?á In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit addressed the application of the judicially created ?Ç£abstract idea?Ç¥ exception to patent eligibility under the two-step framework set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (following Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). The district court in Amdocs?áinvalidated the four patents asserted by Plaintiff-Appellant Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. as patent ineligible under ?º 101 using the two-step Alice/Mayo framework:?á US Patent Nos. 7,631,065 (?Ç£?ÇÖ065 patent?Ç¥); 7,412,510 (?Ç£?ÇÖ510 patent?Ç¥); 6,947,984 (?Ç£?ÇÖ984 patent?Ç¥); and 6,836,797 (?Ç£?ÇÖ797 patent?Ç¥). ?áAs discussed by the Federal Circuit, all… Continue Reading
On October 14, 2016, in Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries (Appeal No. 16-1200, Fed. Cir. October 14, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (?Ç£the CAFC?Ç¥) analyzed and applied one of two exceptions to the general claim construction rule that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. ?áPhillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312?Çô13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). ?áThis one exception states that the plain and ordinary meaning standard [of claim construction] is departed from when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term in the specification or during prosecution. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The question before the CAFC in Poly-America was whether any of the terminology in the asserted patent, or any of patentee?ÇÖs actions during its prosecution, could be interpreted as a disavowal of claim scope.?á In answering this question,… Continue Reading
The 2016 enrollment count submission under the Transitional Reinsurance Program is due November 15, 2016. The submission may be completed via www.pay.gov. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services offers the option to pay the 2016 reinsurance contribution in one payment due by January 17, 2017, or two payments due by January 17, 2017 and November 15, 2017.
Is common sense good enough to make up for deficiencies of a cited reference in an obviousness analysis??á In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit said ?Ç£no,?Ç¥ by reversing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (?Ç£PTAB?Ç¥) to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the ?Ç£Arendi patent?Ç¥). When Arendi S.A.R.L., a Luxembourg company, brought patent infringement suits against several technology heavyweights, including Apple, Inc., Google, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC, these defendant companies struck back by filing a petition for an Inter Partes Review (?Ç£IPR?Ç¥) seeking to invalidate the Arendi patent. ?áIn the IPR proceeding, the PTAB invalidated the Arendi patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. ?º103.?á Arendi then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The Arendi patent is directed to computer functions that allow a user to remain in a document displayed by a first computer… Continue Reading
On September 30, 2016, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Symantec Corp., No. 15-1769, 15-1770, 15-1771, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturned a lower court?ÇÖs finding of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.?á?º?á101 for a patent directed to using computer virus screening in a telephone network, while affirming the lower court?ÇÖs finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C.?á?º?á101 for two other patents directed to methods of screening emails and other data files for unwanted content, and methods of routing e-mail messages based on specified rules.?á ?á?áThe court analyzed each of the patents at issue separately using the Mayo/Alice two-part test for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.?á?º?á101, coming to the same conclusion each time. First, the court addressed U.S. Patent No.?á 6,460,050 (?Ç£the ?Çÿ050 patent?Ç¥), which was held patent ineligible by the lower court. ?áThe ?Çÿ050 patent is directed to filtering e-mails that have unwanted content by… Continue Reading
It is no secret that it is difficult for software technology patent claims to be deemed subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. ?º 101 on appeal, as only a handful of cases involving software technology have passed ?º 101 scrutiny by the Federal Circuit since the Supreme Court?ÇÖs decision in Alice v. CLS Bank: Until recently, there have been only three such cases: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. However, now a fourth case may be added to those ranks. On September 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit decided McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., ruling that claims directed to automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method were patent-eligible under ?º 101. Below is a review of the McRO case facts, the legal reasoning of the Federal Circuit in reaching its conclusion, and… Continue Reading