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
Share Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy deal, which will reach the Supreme Court for oral argument on Monday , is just one of many examples of recent unorthodox civil procedure maneuvers in public harms litigation. Although the statute formally allows for only pre-trial consolidation, 99% of cases consolidated into MDL settle.
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. What arguments could you raise, she queried, that would be different than the manufacturer?
This doctrine allows the government to potentially dismiss litigation that would require disclosure of information damaging to national security. involves a complicated copyright dispute between two clothing manufactures. A lawsuit was filed in 2011 but was dismissed based on state secrets privilege. H&M Hennese & Mauritz, L.P
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).
Deepsouth litigated its case to the Supreme Court, and the Court eventually allowed the company to escape some portion of its adjudged liability based upon the territorial limits of U.S. ” However on certiorari, the Supreme Court felt itself bound by the statute and precedent. manufacturing capability. patent law.
The centerpiece of Cuomo’s plan is a new law to allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers under a nuisance theory. Indeed, its main component — a law allowing citizens to sue gun manufacturers — will be as productive as trying to win the New York Marathon by running furiously in place. Andrew Cuomo. Of the $138.7
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
brings the justices yet another case under a statute with which they are all too familiar – the Federal Arbitration Act. The workers in this particular case (including Neil Bissonnette) are commercial truck drivers, who transport packaged goods manufactured by Flowers Foods, best known for its production of Wonder Bread.
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.
Kirschenbaum — On September 30, we blogged about the ongoing dispute and litigation around the use of contract pharmacies under the 340B Drug Discount Program (click here ). A key issue before the court was whether, despite the relevant statute’s silence on the issue, Congress intended to allow the use of contract pharmacies.
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
Karst — If you monitor Regulations.gov dockets and litigation dockets on PACER like we do, then you know that one company name—more than any other over the past several years—pops up: Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Court of Federal Claims allowed Vanda’s Fifth Amendment takings claim to move forward in litigation.
Although it required invention in name, it was really just becoming a replacement to monopolies barred by the Statute of Monopolies (1624). . Instead of deriving peace, honour, and affluence from their incessant labour and incomparable skill, they have sunk under vexation and the pressure of litigation. Van Ness argues that the U.S.
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 parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. , Patreon, Inc., 35 U.S.C. §
CMS did not finalize the price verification survey, which would have required manufacturers of 10 costly drugs selected annually to provide clinical information as well as information on production, distribution, research, and marketing costs, revenue and profit, and ex-U.S. that is not supported by the statute and applicable regulations.”
The 2017 Supreme Court decision 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.
gun manufacturers. Three courts of appeals have adopted a literal interpretation of the law, he said, “to criminalize only the making of statements that are false,” while four others (including the one in which he was convicted) “interpret the statute more broadly” to apply also to misleading statements. Reynolds Vapor Co.
The question comes to the court in the case of George Sheetz , who in 2016 applied for a permit to build a 1,854-square-foot manufactured home on land that he owns in Placerville, California. To receive the permit, Sheetz was required to pay El Dorado County $23,420 in traffic-mitigation fees. The plaintiff in the case, Yonas Fikre, is a U.S.
The statute does not create any express ‘safe harbor’ for the generic manufacturer against liability for patent infringement. Certainly, the manufacturer would be liable for inducement if it encouraged off-label infringing use of its product. This situation was litigated most recently in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v.
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. was filed by a plaintiff seeking to enforce a similar registration statute. Returning Relists.
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.
On the heels of its powerful (and unprecedented) amicus brief in Paragraph IV litigation between Jazz and Avadel concerning a patent covering a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) listed in the Orange Book, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is gearing up to tackle anticompetitive Orange Book listing practices.
See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. 32; 285 S.W.
Share The Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowed the doctrine of patent assignor estoppel, which prohibits an inventor from assigning a patent to someone and then later contending in litigation that the patent is invalid. By a vote of 5-4, the court rejected calls to completely abandon the doctrine. Formica Insulation Co. ,
Tube-Mac, is the plaintiff in this case and is looking to manufacture its own version of the container systems. 256. . = = = One interesting aspect of this decision relates to absence of a statute of limitations. ”) Patent law does not have a specific statute of limitations associated with claims to correct inventorship.
See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations. Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. 32; 285 S.W.
If a drug that has been approved for 12 years—but less than 16 years—is selected for the Drug Price Negotiation Program, a biosimilar manufacturer can request a one-year moratorium on negotiations for that product so that the biosimilar manufacturer has time to secure licensure and begin marketing of the biosimilar version.
Instead, a generic manufacturer can sell its product with a “skinny label” that “carves out” any patented uses found in the brand drug’s labeling—and thereby avoid inducing infringement of the brand manufacturer’s patent rights. The petition was filed by highly regarded Supreme Court litigator William Jay (Goodwin) on July 11, 2022.
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the ongoing opioid litigation and an important ruling out of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Companies can be held strictly liable for products that are defective in design, manufacture or warnings. In the opioid litigation, the companies were producing a lawful, nondefective product.
As such, that statute was unjust, confiscatory and violated their constitutional due process rights. The court did not make much of Plaintiff’s argument that a manufacturer cannot terminate its participation in Medicare for close to two years, see Motion at 8; Complaint at 27-28, potentially dismissing it as a mere administrative matter.
Although Ford sells Explorers in Montana, the particular Ford Explorer here was not designed, manufactured, or sold in Montana. None of our precedents has suggested that only a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s in-state activity and the litigation will do. ” Quoting Reiter (1979). ”
Where there were genuine issues of material fact in a products liability case filed against the manufacturer and seller of an ATV, summary judgment for defendants was reversed. Defendant manufacturer asserted that any evidence that the winch might have reverse-spooled was speculative, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. In Vaulton v.
For decades, a trademark owner’s chances of recovering an infringer’s profits in litigation varied depending on where the case was pending. But Fossil’s manufacturers in China began using counterfeit Romag fasteners, and Fossil did not take appropriate steps to keep them from doing so. The Background. Willfulness No Longer Required.
An inferior officer decision will interpret the statute as providing the PTO director with substantial authority; a principal officer decision will downplay the role of the PTO director. Patent Eligibility : Of the pending eligibility cases, I find American Axle and Ariosa the most interesting: American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.
In other words, the California law assumes that every potential Paragraph IV patent settlement is anticompetitive, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers must show that the settlement is not anticompetitive to avoid upwards of $20 million in fines. The case was dismissed without prejudice.
In other words, the California law assumes that every potential Paragraph IV patent settlement is anticompetitive, and the pharmaceutical manufacturers must show that the settlement is not anticompetitive to avoid upwards of $20 million in fines. The case was dismissed without prejudice.
Applications of AI manufacturing AI has various applications in manufacturing that are revolutionizing the traditional methods and streamlining the processes. Enhanced safety AI-powered systems can identify and prevent potential hazards in the manufacturing environment.
Note: I was involved in litigating patents from this patent family when owned by the predecessor-in-interest. I am no longer involved the litigation. The district court concluded that the patentee Eazy-PZ had engaged in litigation misconduct—all of which was associated with the asserted utility patent. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.
Apart from customary international law, it is also doubtful that Meng’s conduct in Hong Kong fell within the scope of the federal bank and wire fraud statutes. conduct is required under the federal bank and wire fraud statutes, Meng engaged in no U.S. The machines to make these chips are manufactured in the Netherlands.
Koblitz — Increasingly the subject of induced infringement litigation, the viability of the carve-out has been questioned for several years now. Novartis further claims that the MSN labeling is unlawful because it violates the statutory requirement that the indications be “the same.”
Statute has left little of the common law untouched. US customers also waived their rights to litigate in representative proceedings against Carnival (the ‘class action waiver’) ( PJ, [27] ). First, a statute may impose a choice of law rule directing the application of the lex fori where a connecting factor is established.
In 1981, Congress passed a statute requiring that reimbursement rates paid to organizations for managing state Medicaid plans must be “actuarially sound.” The case has already been rescheduled three times, clearly indicating it’s on at least one of the justices’ radar. Next up is Texas v. Axon Enterprise, Inc.
One rarely litigated aspect of trademark law is that the use of the trademark must be for a lawful purpose. However, the FDA notes that delta-8 THC does not appear “in significant amounts in cannabis plants so it is often manufactured from hemp-derived cannabidiol.”. The Ninth Circuit recently tackled this issue in AK Futures LLC v.
In yet another decision based on statutory interpretation, an appellate court has decided that FDA’s interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) is contrary to the plain text of the statute. It may lead to new litigation or call into question previous FDA awards of orphan drug exclusivity.
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