Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Continuing the trend of informing readers about helpful online services (See October <i>PLLS</i> Online for a description of CourtLink and November <i>PLLS</i> Online for EDOCKET), this month's column describes an electronic discovery service that may be useful in complicated product liability litigation. We are not recommending the service; we merely inform our readers of its existence and its claims.
Features
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
According to Professors Henderson and Twerksi, the Reporters for the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, "... post-sale warnings are probably the most expansive area in the law of products liability." The authors go on to say that "[I]f you want to see people turn ashen white quickly, we recommend that you gather representatives from industry in a room and then flash the words 'post-sale warnings' on a screen." They further describe post-sale warnings as "timeless" and a "monster duty."
Features
It is well known that the doctrine of strict liability imposes responsibility upon manufacturers without regard to their fault or the degree of care they may have exercised in designing their products. Yet, in some jurisdictions the law of strict liability is stricter than in others, and courts in these "strict-strict liability" jurisdictions may prohibit the employment of certain common defenses to product liability claims. Manufacturers that find themselves on the defense in such jurisdictions may face the unexpected and initially unpleasant news that the trial on the horizon really will be about the product, the whole product and nothing but the product, and that the sole question for the jury may be "can someone given 20/20 hindsight fathom a plausible way to make this product safer?" Such manufacturers will often find that what they were hoping to rely upon for the cornerstone of their defense — explaining who, what, where, when, why and how from the company's perspective — is not only irrelevant but also inadmissible at trial.
Features
The Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines asks the Sentencing Commission to adopt a new guideline defining "effective program to prevent and detect violations of law" as used in USSG ' 82C.5(f). The Report recommends that the definition include conducting ongoing risk assessments as one of its elements. The assessments would have two aspects: 1) a determination of "the scope and nature of the risks of violations of law associated with an organization's activities," and 2) use of the results of the assessments to "influence the design and implementation of a broad range of features of an effective [compliance] program."
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Anyone who has gone through the cumbersome and laborious process of trying to obtain discovery from abroad through letters rogatory will appreciate the frustration that gave rise to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties in Criminal Matters (MLATs). Generally, these treaties, which the United States has negotiated with dozens of countries, provide procedures by which prosecutors in one signatory country can obtain evidence located within the territory of the other.
Analysis of recent rulings that affect your practice.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Group to the United States Sentencing Commission on the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines (OSG) has recommended significant changes, particularly in the seven criteria for an effective compliance program to prevent and detect violations of law that, if implemented by an organization, may qualify it for a reduced fine in the event of a conviction.
It is no secret that more than a few biotech and pharmaceutical companies perform drug discovery offshore and then import the results. Holders of U.S. patents on drug discovery tools (such as molecular screening methods) have wondered for years whether data or drugs resulting from such activities constitute a "product made" under The Process Patent Amendments Act of 1988 (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") — in a setback to the U.S. drug discovery industry — has now held that they do not. <i>See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.,</i> 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003).