LJN Newsletters

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.

Part One of this series discussed the misuse of the public nuisance doctrine in product liability litigation. The conclusion addresses the rejection of these claims by courts in Missouri and New Jersey.

This article will help companies and their employees prepare for and, if necessary, deal with, a surprise interview by government agents conducted as part of an investigation of an allegedly defective product.

It is well documented that government bodies are scrutinizing companies' promotional efforts, particularly marketing of products for unapproved uses, commonly referred to as 'off-label promotion.' Of course, it is important for any company to consider the regulatory implications of disseminating off-label information. However, it is shortsighted for companies not to consider potential product liability implications of off-label promotion.

Part One of this series discussed the following forms of the business opportunity model of patent monetization: 1) outright sale of the patent; 2) exclusive field-of-use licenses; and 3) nonexclusive licenses and transfer of know-how. This month's installment addresses corporate transactions and various investment and financing vehicles.

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.