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
In 2017, Oklahoma sued J&J, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals under the state’s public nuisance statute alleging that the drug manufacturers deceptively marketed opioids within the state. But that conduct has been criminal or property-based conflict.
Plaintiff had argued that using the patented methods in the design process, which guides the subsequent manufacturing process, is sufficient to state a claim. In other words, Defendant argued that alleging a method is used in the design of a product is distinct from alleging that the method is used in the manufacture of the product.
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). We have previously reported on this case here and here. No judgment has yet been rendered.
Kirschenbaum — In a recent decision, the Second Circuit upheld the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG)’s position that Pfizer’s proposed copay assistance program for its high-cost heart treatment would violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Pfizer, Inc.
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.
In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gives the FDA the power to regulate tobacco products and requires manufacturers to obtain the FDAs permission before putting a new tobacco product on the market. In 2016, the FDA issued a rule indicating that the law applies to e-cigarettes and e-liquids.
By Faraz Siddiqui — As drug manufacturers battle the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) in federal courts over the role of 340B contract pharmacies, an Eighth Circuit decision to uphold a 2021 Arkansas law may render those cases inconsequential in that state. Code Ann. § 23-92-604(c)(1), (2) (Act 1103).
While neither case is particularly high profile, both involve subtle interpretations of surveillance and copyright law, respectively. involves a complicated copyright dispute between two clothing manufactures. Fazaga and Unicolors, Inc. H&M Hennese & Mauritz. Unicolors, Inc. H&M Hennese & Mauritz, L.P
The centerpiece of Cuomo’s plan is a new law to allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers under a nuisance theory. It is doubtful that Cuomo truly believes that the law will make a significant, if any, impact on gun violence. The new law is written to get around a federal ban on such lawsuits. Of the $138.7
The following year, Congress passed the first patent act that was then signed-into law by President George Washington. Three years later, Congress substantially rewrote the statute and, at that time changed the pronouns. The new law eliminated the female pronoun “she.” patent system. 307, 308 (2018); B. LEGAL HIST.
In a court filing last month, Glock claimed it has immunity from the suit under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and that the state law it is accused of violating is unconstitutional since it attempts to override the federal law.
Where plaintiff filed a products liability claim based on a hip replacement device she had received, but her hip replacement occurred more than ten years before her suit was filed, dismissal based on the statute of repose was affirmed. The statute of repose for products liability cases is a hard line with very limited exceptions.
Many of the updates relate to drug manufacturer practices with regard to speaker events, including meals, choice of venue, and attendance. Although the PhRMA Code is a voluntary code of conduct, drug manufacturers should consider updating their marketing policies and practices to align with the new Code. (We
patent law. This was a very technical decision and we can manufacture the entire machine without any complication in the United States, with the exception that there are two parts that must not be assembled in the United States, but assembled after the machine arrives in Brazil. .” Patent Law Amendments Act of 1984, Pub.
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment finding that Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) submitted by generic drug manufacturers did not infringe patents rights held by H. The statute’s patent specific.” But, as relevant for this case, 35 U.S.C. §
Share The justices narrowly rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania law that allows any company doing business in the state to be sued there – even if the corporation is not headquartered in Pennsylvania and the conduct at the center of the lawsuit occurred somewhere else. of Philadelphia v. of Ireland v.
2015) in finding that manufacture and delivery of a product in a foreign country can infringe a US patent if sufficient sales-activity occurred within the US. In its appeal, Broadcom also argued that the jury should have receive instructions on the presumption against extraterritorial application of US law. Broadcom Ltd. 2129 (2018).
Eligibility under Section 101 : American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. The asserted patent covers a new method of manufacturing an automobile drive-shaft with reduced vibration. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. , Patreon, Inc., 35 U.S.C. §
A Kentucky federal judge has ruled that digital information isn't covered by the federal smuggling statute and dismissed a charge against a magnetics manufacturer and two executives accused of emailing magnet schematics to Chinese companies.
We reported that HRSA was proceeding with enforcement actions against drug manufacturers that have declined to sell to 340B covered entities that use multiple contract pharmacies to dispense 340B drugs to their patients, despite the pendency of several lawsuits challenging such enforcement.
VIP Products firmly rejected the use of the Jack Daniel’s trademarks by a manufacturer selling a line of dog toys that mock various beverage manufacturers. Kagan rests her analysis on two basic points of trademark law, summarized emphatically at the beginning and reiterated at the end of her opinion.
Shapiro — Does your firm manufacture a “cyber device”? Congress has given FDA the authority to require device manufacturers to provide cybersecurity information in their premarket submissions for a “cyber device.” Please refer to the help text in this section for the content that is required according to this statute.”
The Court held that local consumer legislation – in the form of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) – applies to foreign manufacturers. The decision is of particular interest to New Zealand consumers and manufacturers of goods that are supplied in New Zealand, as well as traders advertising their products to New Zealanders.
Federal gun laws regulate receipt and possession of firearms as well as their manufacture, importation, distribution, and transfer. Federal law also penalizes the criminal use of firearms. Most of the defendants prosecuted under federal statutes were charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
The short provision has remained essentially unchanged since it was originally handwritten in the 1700s and signed into law by President George Washington. ” Unfortunately, due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, patent eligibility law in the United States has become confused, constricted, and unclear in recent years.
by Dennis Crouch Law school civil procedure courses spend very little time on proper venue because, in most cases venue is proper so long as the district court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. ” This provision ensures the venue statutes do not limit the ability to sue foreign defendants U.S. 1391(c)(3).
While there are certain rights in common law trademarks, greater protection is afforded by registering the mark with the USPTO. But there are exceptions and exclusions under patent law. For example, courts have found that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patentable. A patent protects an invention.
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. The statute sets this “average price” as ASP plus 6%. Becerra, No. 20-1114, 596 U. S. _ (2022). See 42 U.S.C.
The case does not expressly decide any patent law issues, but does provide some guidance as to how courts should approach mixed questions of law and fact (such as claim construction) and the right to a jury trial. The court made no determination as to whether the API was actually copyrightable in the first place. Hirshfeld , No.
For several years, Celanese kept its Ace-K manufacturing process a trade secret while selling the Ace-K product it produced. Historically, an inventor could choose to protect a new manufacturing process either by patenting it or by keeping it as a trade secret – but not both. Celanese appealed. Compare D.L. Auld Company v.
FCA US LLC , the Supreme Court today holds that restitution a manufacturer owes under the Song-Beverly Act (Civ. That rule applies “at least where, as here, a consumer has been forced to trade in or sell a defective vehicle due to the manufacturer’s failure to comply with the Act.” In Niedermeier v. Code, § 1790 et seq.)
If you manufacture, distribute, or sell hemp products in the U.S., These requirements are mandated by various laws and regulations and can be challenging to navigate. First, ensure your product label adheres to federal labeling regulations governing the type of product you are manufacturing, distributing, or selling.
Whitmer , which upheld the State of Michigan’s alcohol delivery laws in the face of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. State-licensed alcohol producers and manufacturers (first tier) sell their products to licensed wholesalers (second tier), who in turn distribute the product to licensed retailers (third tier).
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).
In this case, Truck Insurance Exchange wants to object to the plan proposed by the bankrupt asbestos company Kaiser Gypsum because the plan does not require the disclosure of parallel claims to other asbestos manufacturers that would allow the insurer to make sure the claims it must pay are not fraudulent.
In a statement , the company denied all allegations raised in the case, saying that it believed its intent and conduct to be at all times lawful and appropriate. The Alert described several factors that could potentially violate the antikickback statute. The company did not accept any admission of liability as part of the settlement.
Hetronic manufactures remote controls for construction equipment. As Justice Alito noted in his opinion, the presumption against extraterritoriality is a “longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
The move came in response to a tide of lawsuits brought against manufacturers of the technology by women who alleged serious complications from its use in surgery. But in any event, the company contends, it suffered the real injury from insufficient warning of possible risks, due to the laws’ vague language regarding “violation[s].”.
Gaulkin — We previously blogged about Pfizer’s copay assistance lawsuit, which sought to challenge HHS’s interpretation of the Federal health care program anti-kickback statute (AKS) and position that the company’s proposed copay assistance program would violate the AKS. By Sophia R. Background. 3d 774 (7th Cir. Greber, 760 F.2d
Brevig, Senior Regulatory Device and Biologics Expert — Earlier this year, we posted on the still unsettled state of the law regarding whether “FDCA violations may, in certain circumstances, be material to the government’s decision whether to pay for the affected product, and thus relevant in an FCA case.” By JP Ellison & Holly N.
In its Compliance Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers , the HHS OIG notes: The OIG recognizes that the implementation of a compliance program may not entirely eliminate improper conduct from the operations of a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
This year the long conference yielded 12 new grants, on topics ranging from controversial laws seeking to regulate social media companies ( covered in a separate story ) to property rights and bankruptcy fees. The cases granted on Friday will likely be argued in January or February 2024, with a decision to follow by summer. Supreme Court.
now states: “Products of the United States when returned after having been exported, or any other products when returned within 3 years after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of manufacture or other means while abroad.” manufacturer are not clearly stated. claim (p.s.
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