Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Increased Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Company Clinical Trials: The Plaintiff Responds
August 01, 2006
<i>'Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.'</i> In this author's opinion, Winston Churchill's keen observation of human nature is an apt description for how the pharmaceutical industry deals with dangers revealed or at least signaled in clinical trials. For years, plaintiffs' lawyers have honed in on clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies when preparing for and trying cases. These studies, often the banner touted by defendants as evidence of their innocence, are a natural place to begin the search for what went wrong when a drug is subsequently pulled from the market despite the supposed 'rigors' of clinical testing. While there is nothing new about plaintiffs' lawyers reviewing clinical trials with a fine-toothed comb, there has been a radical and bold step taken in the world of medical/science academia. Specifically, major publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine ('NEJM') and the Journal of the American Medical Association ('JAMA') are ensuring that industry-sponsored studies do not merely contain partial truths.
Increased Scrutiny of Pharmaceutical Company Clinical Trials: The Defense Perspective
August 01, 2006
In recent large-scale pharmaceutical litigation, plaintiffs' counsel have concentrated significant resources seeking the details of how individual patients in pre- and post-marketing company clinical trials were assessed, characterized, and reported to the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA'). The reason is clear: They are seeking to develop (in the author's opinion unfairly) a story that the pharmaceutical company hid risks and overstated benefits. The efficacy and safety data generated by industry-sponsored studies, and the manner in which the data are analyzed and reported, have therefore become the focus of large-scale pharmaceutical litigation.
Real Property Law
August 01, 2006
Analysis of recent cases.
Landlord & Tenant
August 01, 2006
In-depth analysis of a recent ruling.
Eminent Domain Law
August 01, 2006
The latest news.
Development
August 01, 2006
Recent cases of interest.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
August 01, 2006
The latest cases.
Licensing Title Agents
August 01, 2006
Whatever happened to the title agents licensing bill? At one point, it 'had to happen.' Innumerable meetings were held. Forests were felled to provide the paper to print and distribute various drafts of proposed bills. Lincolnesque letters and articles were written and published. E-mails clogged up thousands of mailboxes. And now silence. There may very well be a bill on the Governor's desk in the near future. This article represents an attempt to explain why the agent-licensing bill is not there yet. The opinions expressed are the author's own, have no official sanctions and do not advocate any particular version of the bill.
IP News
August 01, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Use It or Lose It: Can Residual Goodwill Avert Abandonment?
August 01, 2006
The notorious legal battle over the right to use the MUSTANG RANCH trademark for legal brothel services illustrates the 'use it or lose it' adage as applied to trademark rights and the difficulty of establishing an excuse for nonuse. <i>Burgess v. Gilman</i>, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1773 (D. Nev. 2006). Because U.S. law does not permit the warehousing of trademarks, the owner of a trademark typically must use the mark in commerce or lose the ability to prevent others from using it. For this reason, '8 of the Lanham Act requires trademark owners to file a declaration of use between the fifth and sixth year after registration and with renewals. 15 U.S.C. '1058.

MOST POPULAR STORIES