Restriction practice (ie, the restriction of a patent application to prosecution of a single claimed invention per filing fee) has been around since the mid-1800s. In recent years, hyperproliferation of restriction requirements, especially in the biotechnology, chemical and software arts, has occurred. It has not been uncommon for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to assert that a patent application contains 10, 20, even 100 distinct inventions.
In last month's newsletter, we looked at some helpful Web sites for those who need to track the efficacy and safety of medical devices. Following are more useful Web sites for these purposes.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
The recent federal trial court decision in Dusek v. Pfizer Inc., Civil Action No. H-02-3559 (S.D. Tex. 2/20/04) dismissing plaintiffs' products liability claims against Pfizer in connection with the prescription drug Zoloft' on the ground of conflict preemption has given the pharmaceutical industry some hope that compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations will afford protection from common law failure-to-warn claims. The court granted summary judgment on the ground that a cause of action based on the plaintiff's proposed additional warning to the product label that Zoloft can cause suicidal ideation would conflict with the FDA's decision not to add such a warning because no causal link had in fact been established and it would in effect be false and misleading in violation of federal law. This should not deter continued efforts to obtain tort reform at the state level, however, where the continued influx of pharmaceutical product liability claims continues to burden courts and the pharmaceutical industry.
A complete listing of everything contained in this issue.
Recent cases of interest to you and your practice.
The latest cases of importance to your practice.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
As a result of non-eviction co-op conversion plans, many rent-stabilized tenants live in co-operative apartment units. Suppose the apartment's owner overcharges the tenant. May the tenant recover the overcharge from a successor owner who purchased the co-operative unit at a UCC foreclosure sale? That issue, faced by a New York court in Muscat v. Gray (infra page 3 ), raises questions both of statutory construction and public policy.
