Following the Second Circuit’s ruling in U.S. v. Caronia, two recent developments, the Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. settlement and the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of Scott Harkonen's conviction, demonstrate a shift in the battleground for First Amendment challenges to the prohibition on off-label promotion under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, say attorneys with King & Spalding LLP.
The Northern District of California seems to be at the forefront in formulating a process for early disclosure of damages theories by patentees. The reasoning behind this approach is laid out very well in a short, but considered, opinion that was recently handed down in Eon Corp. IP Holding LLC v. Sensus USA Inc., says Gaston Kroub of Locke Lord LLP.
The Ninth Circuit has further narrowed the scope of federal preemption in the aviation field in Gilstrap v. United Airlines. We conclude that the new standard promotes more uncertainty than it resolves, vests plaintiffs with the strategic advantage of deciding when to invoke federal preemption and invites gamesmanship through artful pleading, say attorneys with Morrison Foerster LLP.
The lessons of the Northern District of California ruling in Galaviz v. Berg inform that corporations will do well to ensure that shareholders consent to the adoption of a forum selection provision within their governing documents. This can be achieved in a few ways, says Onome Okpewho of McCarter & English LLP.
Though the California Court of Appeal warned against the revival of shakedown lawsuits, its decision in Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Services may nonetheless trigger a blunderbuss of suits between business competitors seeking to police each other’s activities, say Seth Gerber and Candace Frazier of Bingham McCutchen LLP.
Meso Scale Diagnostics v. Roche Diagnostics, a case of first impression in Delaware, will likely be viewed with relief by corporate practitioners because it both resolves the ambiguity created by an earlier ruling in this same case and because it sits in stark conflict with two previous federal district court opinions in California and New Jersey, say attorneys with Ropes & Gray LLP.
Fitness innovators who wish to protect their intellectual property may be sweating a bit more after a U.S. district court in Los Angeles told the founder of Bikram yoga he couldn’t copyright his famous yoga. The court’s ruling and a statement from the U.S. Copyright Office appear to deal a major setback to Bikram, says Brian Thompson of Sedgwick LLP.
New e-discovery guidelines from the Northern District of California will require an early and substantial knowledge of the preservation and discovery of electronically stored information — including where and how much data may be stored, which custodians have the most relevant information, and whether and how to conduct the ESI discovery in phases. For many parties, there will be a steep learning curve, says Ary Chang of Foley & Lardner LLP.
Recently, California legislators introduced four hydraulic fracturing bills, which, if passed, would authorize several regulatory agencies to govern fracking activities. With these bills, there are also legal obstacles that may come into play, and the industry can expect to see more delays in the permitting of new oil and gas wells, greater litigation and a definite departure from business as usual, say attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP.
One of the most fascinating facets of watching the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is trying to guess not simply whether an MDL will be created, but where it will be located. Take, for example, In re Mirena IUD Products Liability and Marketing Litigation, slated to be heard at the March 21 hearing, says Alan Rothman of Kaye Scholer LLP.