Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A battle between two dietary supplement manufacturers has revived interested in the intersection between the Lanham Act and federal labeling regulations. The issue: can an advertiser challenge a competitor’s product label for false advertising under the Lanham Act if it complies with applicable federal regulations? The Supreme Court of the United States answered the question affirmatively in 2014 with regard to food products, and now the 11th Circuit has weighed in with regard to dietary supplements. In Hi-Tech Pharms, Inc. v HBA Intl’s Corp, 2018 WL 6314282, No. 17-13884 (11th Cir. Dec 4, 2018), the Circuit Court ruled that a Lanham Act claim for unfair or deceptive advertising could proceed even if a supplement’s label had complied with the requirements of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
*May exclude premium content
By Ben Clark
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
Proving that even the driest of constitutional issues can have significant practical effect, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in United States v. Arthrex. Before the Court was whether administrative judges of the PTAB have been appointed unconstitutionally.
By Bruce M. Wexler, Aaron P. Selikson, Ashley N. Mays-Williams and Susan S. Hwang
The decision appears to take steps to harmonize the prior cases that appropriately were guided by the Wands factors with the cases discussing the “full scope” of enablement that have engendered some confusion in the law.
By Siraj Husain
As intellectual property continues to influence business operations, more companies are considering defensive patent pools as a strategic measure to guard against threats that can stifle innovation and growth for both businesses and industries.
By Kelvin Han
Federal Circuit Wasn’t Chicken to Grant Equitable Intervening Right in Poultry Processing Equipment Case
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term “protection of investments” in 35 U.S.C. §252.