Features

Important information you need to know.

Features

The Federal Circuit recently agreed to an en banc review of the admittedly scattered precedents concerning inequitable conduct. <i>Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &amp; Co.</i> In vacating its earlier panel decision in <i>Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &amp; Co.,</i> the rehearing order sets out six issues surrounding the materiality-intent standard at the core of any inequitable-conduct analysis. In the meantime, the current materiality-intent standard continues to result in drastically different outcomes, even among members of the same panel.

The debate continues on how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) applies to, and affects, <i>ex parte</i> communications in civil litigation.

Features

The National Quality Forum, a nonprofit organization that aspires to set priorities and goals for improvement in health care in the United States, established the concept of "Never Events," which consists of a list of serious complications that should never occur in a safe hospital.

Defendants in patent infringement actions have new reason to scrutinize their Commercial General Liability insurance policies. On April 5, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that allegations of patent infringement involving a method of advertising constitute "advertising injury," triggering an insurer's duty to defend a patent infringement suit.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Protection Act ("IDPPA" or S. 3728) was introduced in the Senate on Aug. 5, 2010 by Sen. Charles Schumer. The bill proposes to extend copyright protection to unique fashion designs by amending Chapter 13 of U.S. Code Title 17 (the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act of 1998).

Features

While the current clinical trial scheme in the United States requires sponsors of trials to provide potential participants disclosure as to known possible risks of participating, there is no coherent and dependable scheme in this country for the protection of patients, hospitals and sponsors against the costs posed by clinical trial injury.

Features

This article presents some historical context illustrating the early development of e-discovery jurisprudence, continues with a discussion of the influential Sedona Conference and the findings of the Advisory Committee on the federal rules, analyzes the most recent case law, and outlines a prudent approach to e-discovery.