Features
Managing Liability Risks from Robotic Surgery
Robotic technology may spawn both medical malpractice and product liability exposures, claims and lawsuits. Suits and claims may arise from one area or both. Here's what you need to know.
Features
Third Circuit Establishes Joint Employment Test
In late June, the Third Circuit considered the broad definition of "employer" under the FLSA to determine when two employers jointly employ an employee, an issue that has been arising with increasing frequency.
Features
Mall's 'Minimal Precautions' Spare It Liability for Murder
Since the owners of an Ulster County, NY, mall took at least "minimal precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable harm," they cannot be held liable for the brutal after-hours murder of the night manager of a restaurant, an appellate court has held.
Features
Landlord & Tenant
In-depth analysis of several key rulings.
Features
First Department Overrules Decision on Claims Against Condo/Co-op Directors
The First Department's recent decision in <i>Fletcher v. The Dakota, Inc., et al.</i> overrules a prior decision that set forth an overly onerous pleading standard for discrimination claims against coop directors and condominium board members.
Features
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.
Features
Potential New Barrier to Verdicts of Willful Infringement?
The question of whether a defendant had willfully infringed a patent has typically been decided by a jury. However, under <i>Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc.,</i> a judge may now have the exclusive role of determining whether a jury is entitled to decide this question.
Features
First Circuit Raises Troubling Questions
The recently published First Circuit opinion in <i>Rosciti v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania</i>, presents an increasingly common interplay between two somewhat different and often conflicting areas of law — insurance coverage and bankruptcy.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
