Litigation

Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

In its June 3, 2008, decision in Pultz v. Economakis, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.

Most employees know that their bosses are usually within their rights snooping on workers' e-mail, but text messaging has been in murkier territory. A federal appeals court sought to clarify matters in a ruling last month by distinguishing between electronic communication that employers store on their servers, or pay someone to store, and communication that is contracted out to third parties.

Patent infringement litigation based on an Abbreviated New Drug Application ('ANDA') presents certain unique challenges to the discovery process. Unlike ordinary patent litigation, little if any information helpful to the patent owner is publicly available. Instead, the patent owner must rely on a well thought out discovery plan to obtain certain information from the ANDA applicant. Suggestions for designing such a plan are presented below.

This is the first installment of a two-part series on the proposed move from a patent system granting priority of patent rights based upon invention dates to a system in which priority is based primarily upon filing dates. This installment discusses the history behind the current first-to-invent system, the current patent reform movement, and the basic proposed change to the current system.

You Tube Suit Threatens Online Communication
Yahoo Files Suit Against Lottery Spammers

Recently, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict based on Daubert principles in a shoulder dystocia case. The court reasoned that the expert's testimony was 'unreliable' because of improper use of the 'differential diagnosis' method and the fact that he made unsupported leaps from assumed facts to conclusions without evidentiary or medical/scientific support. Here's an analysis of the court's thinking.

In a stunning turnaround today, separate appeals courts in New Jersey and Texas reversed verdicts against Merck from some of the earliest trials involving the now-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.