LJN Newsletters

As law firms have continued to grow and the practice of law has become even more of a business, firms are now giving serious attention to how to manage the firm. As they cope with this issue, firms raise many questions. Here are some of the ones they most frequently ask us as consultants ' and our answers.

Since the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') set forth its pre-emption analysis in the preamble to its Jan. 24, 2006 drug-labeling rule, there has been a flood of judicial opinions analyzing the scope and applicability of the pre-emption defense in prescription drug litigation. The cases have been sharply divided, and the defense now appears likely to be a key issue that will be addressed in all cases going forward. In this continuing coverage, I summarize the pre-emption opinions that have been handed down since my last article in the November 2006 issue of this newsletter. For an analysis of the legal arguments in support of pre-emption and the FDA preamble, see Eric G. Lasker, Prescription Drug Litigation Pre-emption Following the FDA Preamble, LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2006).

The first part of this article discussed the Delaware court's decision in In re Asbestos Litigation, the role of epidemiology in proving causation, and the interpretation of the Daubert decision by several courts. The conclusion examines the role of courts as gatekeepers.

Company X is evaluating whether it should purchase the assets of Company Y, which manufactures lawnmowers. Company X has been looking to break into the lawnmower market and sees the purchase of Company Y's assets as an excellent opportunity to do so. Company X is considering two courses of action if it purchases Company Y's assets: 1) continue the manufacture of Company Y's lawnmower product line, using Company Y's designs, specifications, diagrams, blueprints, personnel, and manufacturing facilities; or 2) cease the manufacturing of the product line, but continue Company Y's ancillary business of repairing and servicing the lawnmowers it sold to its customers. Company X comes to you with a seemingly straightforward question: Under these two scenarios, will it be held liable for product liability claims arising from Company Y's manufacture and sale of defective lawnmowers, even if, as part of the asset purchase, it expressly declines to assume Company Y's liabilities? Unfortunately, based on the current state of the law, you will not be able to provide Company X with an easy, clear-cut answer.

Two appellate courts recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer's hard drive, could not be convicted or punished for possessing images that were automatically saved due to the Web browser's cache functions. These rulings strike me as badly mistaken, for reasons that I shall explain further below.

In 1998, Congress passed the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), broadly expanding the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) enforcement powers in the Internet arena. Since then, states and the FTC have become more active in regulating the collection, use and security of consumer's personal information generally. However, the protection of children's personal information remains a top FTC enforcement goal, and the commission has become more aggressive in enforcement of COPPA each year. Companies that fail to proactively act to ensure COPPA compliance do so at the risk of seven-figure penalties.
This article provides Web site operators with suggestions on how to comply with the spirit of COPPA when legal obligations are not crystal clear, as in the case when the operator of the Web site in question believes that it can make a good faith effort to be a 'general audience' Web site, but has reason to believe that the site may attract visitors under the age of 13 and is unsure how the FTC will view and treat the site.

Anti-Piracy Statutes/Constitutionality
Copyright Infringement/Probative and Substantial Similarity
Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity
Trademarks/Right to Sue
Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

The Court of Appeals of Maryland decided that an 18-month suspension of an attorney from practice for taking fees out of royalty distributions before submitting the royalties to a client should run consecutively with a suspension of the attorney for the same reason by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Midlen.