Litigation

Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.

On July 31, 2007, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal of pharmaceutical product liability claims filed by 95 UK plaintiffs in In re Vioxx Litigation, Docket No. A-1731-06T1. The case involved allegations asserting personal injury claims allegedly caused by defendant Merck & Co., Inc.'s anti-inflammatory medicine, Vioxx'. This is a noteworthy forum non conveniens decision that could well have ramifications outside of New Jersey, particularly in other mass tort situations.

Tension concerning the duty-of-care standard has continually mounted as courts have wrestled with the scope of the waiver of the attorney-client and work-product privileges when litigants asserted an advice-of-counsel defense. More recently, several district courts extended the waiver to trial counsel, further presenting considerable obstacles when defending a claim of willful infringement. It is in this environment that the Federal Circuit decided, sua sponte, that it should reconsider the duty-of-care standard and the waiver issues associated with the advice-of-counsel defense.

As discussed in detail in this two-part series, the final rule places a number of restrictions on various aspects of patent practice. This first installment examines the final rule as it relates to continued examination filings.

A federal law that targets online gambling by making it illegal to make or receive payoffs violates the First Amendment, a federal suit charges. A not-for-profit association of Internet gamers and gaming companies is asking a federal judge in Trenton, NJ to block enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ('UIGEA') and to issue a temporary restraining order.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel in a copyright-infringement suit.

Entertainment law firms in California commonly charge the talent they represent on a percentage basis, rather than an hourly one. The typical arrangement requires the client to pay 5% of gross income derived from contracts entered into during the course of the representation. Earlier this year, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles addressed the enforceability of this fee structure in the context of an acrimonious dispute between two entertainment firms. The principal issue in the case, and the focus of this article, is whether clients who had departed for the new firm had a continuing obligation to pay that 5% fee to the old firm as a matter of contract law.

Court Reverses Conviction Where Defendant Was Unaware Of Computer Cache Files