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).
By Wesley Overson, Otis Littlefield, Mat Swiderski, and Stephanie Blij
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mayo and Myriad, the Federal Circuit has expanded the holdings and invalidated more patents directed to biological discoveries. If the newly discovered correlations and properties of what is found in nature cannot be patented, what strategies for protection are left for companies doing biological research?
By Kyle-Beth Hilfer
Two recent circuit court cases clarified copyright infringement of photographs on the Internet. Both cases serve as cautionary tales for those who takes photographs for their websites from the Internet without investigating copyright rights.
By Scott Graham
Stanford Law School made available to the public a database of every patent lawsuit that’s been filed since 2007.
By Howard Shire and Christine Weller
Mercedes Benz USA LLC v. Bombardier