This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Kirschenbaum — Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act does not prohibit pharmaceutical manufacturers from imposing conditions on the distribution of discounted drugs to covered entities in the program. In United Therapeutics Corporation v.
The question comes to the court as part of the FDAs efforts to regulate the multibillion-dollar vaping industry. What arguments could you raise, she queried, that would be different than the manufacturer? A decision in the case is expected by summer. This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
The case involves a dispute between Jack Daniel’s (the largest American whiskey manufacturer) and VIP Products (the second-largest American dog toy manufacturer). 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” manufactured by “Jack Daniel’s,” the toy refers to a “Bad Spaniel” that makes “Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.”
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. process that the machine or manufacture perform. ‘(B) B) HUMAN GENES AND NATURAL MATERIALS.
Circuit, but today, the Supreme Court reversed again and upheld the District Court’s opinion in American Hospital Assn v. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the Medicare statute provides CMS a choice between two options on how to set reimbursement rates for drugs provided in the hospital outpatient setting.
Gaulkin — On April 10, the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed a summary judgment ruling for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the agency’s definitions of “line-extension drug” and “new formulation” for purposes of determining rebates that drug manufacturers may owe the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP).
Most are new or revised definitions and administrative changes, but several proposals represent new policies that should be of concern to drug manufacturers. Price Transparency Surveys The MDRP statute requires manufacturers to submit only three prices: average manufacturer price (AMP), best price, and nominal prices.
Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’sdecision to dismiss a False Claims Act (FCA) ( 21 U.S.C 3729) quit tam suit, alleging that Grifols USA, Grifols Biologicals, Grifols, S.A.,
The 2017 Supreme Courtdecision in TC Heartland gave renewed teeth to the venue statute governing litigation. Although the notice letter is a critical aspect of the Hatch-Waxman process, the Federal Circuit found that the letter was not an “act of infringement” as required by the venue statute. Celgene Corp.
As we reported, on November 5, 2020, the District Court held that the relator could not plausibly plead the requisite scienter because Forest’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute was objectively reasonable and CMS did not warn Forest away from that interpretation through authoritative guidance. Burr , 551 U.S.
The 340B program, authorized under Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act and administered by HRSA, imposes a ceiling price on pharmaceutical manufacturer sales to “covered entities,” which are certain health clinics that receive federal funding and certain types of safety net hospitals to provide them drugs at lower prices.
The collaborative idea was that Eddings would manufacture the sheaths because Junker did not have that capability. Thus, the court has held that an offer-to-manufacture doesn’t count. In reviewing the letter, the court noted that the terms appeared quite complete.
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Returning Relists.
Eligibility under Section 101 : American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. 20-1394 (CVSG requested October 4, 2021); Undermining Jury Decisions : Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. , Patreon, Inc.,
The statute isclear that patents should be awarded to “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” so long as the other requirements of patentability are met. One difficulty with the law here is that it is entirely judge made. SG Brief.
The decision has wide-ranging implications for FDA’s assertion of discretion in classifying and regulating medical products. As most readers of our blog are aware, the regulatory costs to manufacturers of medical products are much lower if FDA regulates a product as a medical device rather than a drug requiring FDA marketing approval.
Important to note here is that each interchangeable biosimilar was first approved as a biosimilar and each biosimilar manufacturer had been sued under the so-called “patent dance” procedure prior to seeking licensure of the biosimilar products as interchangeable. This all sounds complicated, I know.
Last week, the Court ruled on a pair of combined cases that potentially impacts many of our blog readers in the pharmaceutical, device, and biologics space that benefit from reimbursements from Federal health care programs. In this case, the Supreme Court provided greater clarity on how to interpret that requirement.
.’ ” The appellate court also found inapplicable the Legislature’s intent statement in newly enacted Assembly Bill 600 that, in resentencing proceedings under section 1172.1 , which the bill amended, “courts have full discretion. ” The urging went unheeded, except for Justice Evans.
The decision allows the ATF to regulate so-called ghost guns by requiring serial numbers, sales receipts, and background checks. Supreme CourtsDecision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2. Instead, [the plaintiffs] burden is to show that the Rule itself is inconsistent with the statute on its face.’
Share NVIDIA, the world’s most valuable company, sells computer graphics processing chips designed primarily for use in video games, which it sells to manufacturers of game devices. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit allowed the action to proceed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
The court upheld other aspects of the 2018 standards, including the applicable volumes, restrictions on the use of Renewable Identification Numbers for fuel that is exported, and EPA’s accounting for small refinery exemptions. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. EPA remanded the standards but did not vacate the rule.
Supreme Courtsdecision in SEC v. 1096 contradicts longstanding statutory authority on the statute of limitations for civil monetary penalties. 2462, the statute of limitations for civil monetary penalties is five years from the occurrence of the penalized conduct. The latest iteration of proposed Section 27 in S.
Supreme Courtsdecision in SEC v. Under current law, the FTC Commissioners and its ALJs are insulated by statute from presidential removal, raising separation of powers concerns that are currently being litigated in the courts. 1096 imposes a new and longer statute of limitations for patent settlements. Fourth , S.
The New Jersey court also found no basis for Grable jurisdiction, rejecting the companies’ arguments that the City’s claims necessarily raised substantial and actually disputed issues of federal law such as First Amendment issues or issues addressed by federal environmental statutes. Northern Plains Resource Council v. BP p.l.c. ,
EPA (2024), she criticized the Courtsdecision to block an EPA rule without fully engaging with legal and procedural requirements, stating, The Court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule without fully engaging with both the relevant law and the voluminous record. Luxshare, Ltd.
Jackson also inquired about the potential impact of a ruling on the statute of limitations and how courts should approach medical expertise when evaluating agency decisions, especially regarding the safety and efficacy of drugs. No decision yet Food and Drug Administration v. Reynolds Vapor Co.
Agency Deference A doctrine established in the Supreme Court’s 1984 Chevron case is up for review this year in a pair of cases, Loper Bright v. Chevron established a framework for courts to analyze agency action. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. If the intent is clear, the agency must conform to Congressional intent.
DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district courtdecision that vacated the listing of the Arctic ringed seal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). order setting schedule Mar. 1, 2018; order denying remand and notice re tutorial Feb.
The injunction was granted based on the law’s vagueness, just as in the SIFMA decision, and on the constitutional requirement that plans focus on providing benefits to plan members, not on benefiting industries operating within the state.
In Minnesota, the district court granted the State of Minnesota’s motion to remand its case, which asserts state law claims under common law and consumer protection statutes. s consumer protection statute. On March 26, 2021, the court denied Exxon’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of the remand order.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content