Last June, the AMA requested that state and federal agencies initiate investigations into the growing retail-based health clinics run by major pharmacies across the country. The Association claims that there are potential conflicts of interest at these clinics, because the primary goal is profit-making by luring patients to the pharmacy to fill the prescriptions written by the in-house health provider.
The U.S. Supreme Court in February tackled an issue that has come up frequently in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming they've been injured by medical devices: Do the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 preempt state law-based claims against device manufacturers? The Court had partially answered the question in <i>Lohr v. Medtronic</i>, but the fact situation in that case did not necessarily make its decision applicable to other cases against medical devices manufacturers.
Last month, we discussed the fact that a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal explores the relationship between the doctrine of informed consent and the intentional tort of battery. The case was <i>Saxena v Goffney</i>. This is the conclusion of that discussion.
Federal government attorneys recently unsuccessfully attempted to convince a Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to rewrite the terms of the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA') to allow the creation of a reversionary trust rather than give a lump-sum award to pay for a medical malpractice plaintiff's future medical expenses.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
