Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com 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).
The USPTO Brings New Guidance to the Section 101 Quandary
By Susan M. Gerber and A. Patricia Campbell
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
USPTO Attempts to Provide Greater Clarity for Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
By Howard Shire and Christine Weller
Kapoor v. National Rifle Association of America
By Susan M. Gerber and A. Patricia Campbell
Part One of a Two-Part Article
Congress is empowered to create a patent system to promote the useful arts, and it has enacted laws to create a patent system that encourages innovation. Balancing that power, however, the courts in recent years have tried to rein in the scope of the patent right by limiting the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.
Use of Arbitration In Place of Inter Partes Review Proceedings
By David L. Newman
An IPR might be more efficiently accomplished through arbitration than through a PTAB proceeding, so it should be considered by practitioners.
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
