Features
Enforcing Foreign Premarital Contracts
California's premarital agreements are significantly different from foreign marital contracts, which allow a couple to elect a regime of marriage ' for example, joint or community property regimes, a separate property regime, or a variation thereof ' depending on the country. Whether a California court will enforce a foreign marital contract may depend on whether the court applies California law or foreign law.
Features
REMS, Risk and Reward
REMS, or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, is a new tool that Congress provided the FDA to ensure the safe use of certain types of prescription drug products. The FDA may require a drug manufacturer to include a REMS in its new drug application when the agency concludes this is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks.
Is Europe Ready for Class Actions?
Several recent developments suggest that the European Union (EU) and some of its individual Member States are preparing to embrace the idea of collective redress mechanisms for consumer claims. Although an effective European collective redress mechanism has yet to materialize, the process toward crafting one is certainly underway.
Features
Practice Tip: Products Class Action Incentive Awards
This article discusses the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in <i>Rodriguez v. West Publishing Co.</i>, 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009), that specifically considered the viability of incentive awards and their impact on the adequacy of class representatives.
Features
The 'On-Sale' Bar After Pfaff
<i>Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.</i> is widely recognized as a milestone in the annals of patent law for providing direction as to how courts are to analyze and apply the statutory "on-sale" bar to the granting of patents. This article explores how the Federal Circuit has applied <i>Pfaff</i> in more recent cases.
Features
FJC's Study of Diversity Jurisdiction Class Actions
In November 2008, as part of its ongoing study of the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") upon federal courts, the Federal Judicial Center ("FJC") published Preliminary Findings from Phase Two's Pre-CAFA Sample of Diversity Class Actions. That report studied 231 diversity jurisdiction class actions filed in or removed to federal court in the two years prior to Feb. 18, 2005, CAFA's effective date.
The Recovery Act's Daunting Whistleblower Provisions
This article describes the type of activity Section 1553 protects and the competing burdens parties must bear in pursuing and defending retaliation claims under this statute. It also provides a framework for assessing the risks Section 1553 poses to employers, identifies questions Section 1553 leaves unanswered, and presents the question of whether a few of Section 1553's provisions pass constitutional muster.
Features
Statistical Lessons of Ricci v. De Stefano
The first part of this article about the Supreme Court's ruling <i>Ricci v. De Stefano</i> discussed what statisticians really have to say about disparate impact. The conclusion herein addresses the results of, and lessons to be learned from, the <i>Ricci</i> case.
Update on Retaliation Claims
If an employee orally complains to a supervisor about the employer's wage practices, which he believes violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), has the employee engaged in protected activity that may form the predicate to a claim of retaliation under the FLSA?
Changes to Form I-9: Administrative on Their Face; Substantive in Effect
As of April 3, 2009, employers were required to use the new Form I-9 for employment eligibility verification for new employees and applicable re-hires. The new form is the latest step in what has been an unsystematic effort by the United States government to create and enforce immigration laws in the workplace.
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 ›
