Same-Sex Couple Cannot Divorce
January 31, 2007
Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge, issued a decision in late December, <i>Gonzalez v. Green</i>, which held that divorce could not be granted to a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts. Despite this, the court found enforceable a separation agreement signed by both parties in anticipation of divorce. The court's reasoning can be taken as cautionary advice to same-sex partners and their attorneys ' particularly the monied partner and his or her legal representative.
Confusion on the Role of Law Guardians
January 31, 2007
In February 2006, after holding many hearings throughout the state, the Matrimonial Commission appointed by Judge Judith Kaye and headed by Judge Sondra Miller issued a final report addressing many issues important to the matrimonial Bar, including issues regarding law guardians for children. The Commission made a good start in the quest to deal with problems surrounding the law guardian system; for example, it recommended that the term 'law guardian' be replaced by 'attorney for the child' (AC), because the term 'law guardian' can cause confusion in the minds of attorneys and litigants alike. However, in spite of the clarification a name change might bring, there remains much confusion as to the role and power of the AC.
Verdicts
January 31, 2007
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Med Mal News
January 31, 2007
The latest news for your review.
The Hospital Defendant
January 31, 2007
Hospitals have a legal duty to make health care as safe as is possible so that the hospital, through practitioners under its aegis, can offer the proper standard of care. When the hospital fails in this regard, a lawyer may consider a negligent credentialing claim where the hospital did not appropriately credential a practitioner and a direct claim of negligence against the hospital where the institution did not have sufficient policies and procedures, and carry them out, in order to protect patients.
Trends in Financial Services Patents
January 31, 2007
Armed with a well-stocked patent portfolio, a company can effectively corner valuable markets for a limited amount of time. While this concept is second nature for most makers of tangible products, pharmaceuticals, or even software, it is only now becoming widely accepted in the financial services sector. As a result, another battlefield is emerging in which patents are becoming the weapon of choice, and trading floors and back-office processing centers have become the new settings for patent disputes.
Licensees May Challenge a Patent Without Breaching License: The Supreme Court's Decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
January 31, 2007
'We hold that petitioner was not required, insofar as Article III is concerned, to break or terminate its 1997 license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.'With this language, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its 8-1 landmark decision in <i>MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</i>, reversing the holding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('Federal Circuit'). This decision has potentially wide-ranging ramifications for patent licensing.
Supreme Court Revisits Test for Deciding Obviousness
January 31, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently shown an interest in intellectual property in general and patents in particular. Most prominent among the recent cases is <i>KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</i>, which presents perhaps the most difficult question in substantive patent law: When is the subject of a patent application a true 'invention' ' that is, something that promotes the progress of a useful art sufficient to warrant giving the applicant exclusive rights to the technology claimed for the next 20 years. Conversely, when is the invention 'obvious' ' merely taking a step that anyone of ordinary skill would take, confronted with the same problem and possessing all the knowledge already known to the field?
Drug Companies and Failure to Warn
January 31, 2007
For more than one year, product liability cases have been pending against Merck's osteoporosis drug, Fosamax'. Despite having one of the highest side effect profiles of any drug in the U.S. prescription database, Fosamax remains on the market, and available by prescription. When a drug remains on the market during litigation but the manufacturer refuses to warn about a known risk, places the information about the risk in an obscure location or provides inadequate information about the severity of the risk, there is a public problem ' for both patients and prescribers alike ' in the form of a health hazard about which most prescribers have insufficient information.
