Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NYC Alleges Pharmaceutical Companies Manipulated the System
The City of New York filed three lawsuits in May against drug manufacturers it claims overcharged it for pharmaceuticals. The suits, brought in three district courts, claim that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Purdue Pharma L.P. kept prices artificially high on pain reliever OxyContin', antidepressant Paxil', and antibiotic Augmentin' by using false and misleading methods to extend their drugs' patents.
The Purdue Case
The suits follow in the wake of successful actions brought by generic manufacturers against the two brand-name drug producers. In the case of pain reliever OxyContin, for example, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found on Jan. 5 that several patents related to Oxycontin were infringed by generic drug manufacturer Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. but that the patents on the brand-name drug were invalid due to Purdue's inequitable conduct before the patent examiners. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 00 Civ. 8029 (SHS), 01 Civ. 2109 (SHS), 01 Civ. 8177 (SHS), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10 (S.D.N.Y. 1/5/04). The inequitable conduct complained of was this: Although Purdue repeatedly informed PTO examiners that it had discovered an oxycodone formulation that did not simply control pain over a reduced dosage range, but controlled pain over a “four-fold” range of doses for “approximately 90% of patients,” and that this “result” was of “extreme clinical importance,” the company never informed the patent examiners that it had no actual scientific proof that OxyContin's formulation relieved pain in most users over a four-fold dosage range. This claim was based only on one of Purdue's researchers' “insights,” which in turn was based on his observation of test data combined with his knowledge of the properties of oxycodone. The Purdue case is awaiting appeal.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.