Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples with How to Treat Software under '271(f) of the Patent Act
June 28, 2007
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in <i>Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.</i>, No. 05-1056, 127 S. Ct. 1746 (2007). The <i>Microsoft</i> decision addressed the scope of §271(f) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §271(f), which provides that it is an act of infringement to 'supply' the 'components' of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States.
Test Case Linking Vaccines and Autism Reaches Federal Court
June 28, 2007
'Words alone cannot explain the trauma of watching your only child's health deteriorate to such a degree before your eyes,' Theresa Cedillo of Arizona wrotes in an e-mail to Legal Times, a sister publication of this newsletter. On June 11, the case of Michelle Cedillo, Theresa's daughter, will go before an extraordinary tribunal assembled by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Its goal is to determine, for the first time in a judicial proceeding, whether the combination of certain vaccines and thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative, can cause autism ' a set of disorders that is gaining attention as more and more children are diagnosed; as many as one in 150 children born in the United States. The government has long denied such a link exists.
Supreme Court Establishes New Standards for Buying Practices
June 28, 2007
Since the 2003-2004 term, the Supreme Court has heard a surprising number of antitrust cases ' nine in all ' reflecting its increasing interest in, and willingness to address, questions that significantly impact the business community. Equally remarkable is the array of issues the Court has addressed in these cases. In the past three years, the Court has heard cases concerning issues ranging from a unilateral refusal to deal with rivals, to pricing decisions by joint ventures to claims of tying involving a patented product. one opinion has been issued so far ' the unanimous decision in <i>Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co.</i>, 127 S. Ct. 1069 (2007). This article discusses that opinion.
Restaurant Leasing Within a Shopping Center
June 28, 2007
While all retail leases pose an array of issues to the landlords and tenants involved, retail leases relating to restaurants pose certain other issues that must be addressed in order to avoid surprise costs, liabilities, and delays. This article addresses several of those issues that relate to restaurant leases in a shopping center setting (either in a food court or as an outparcel location), including trash removal, pest and rodent control, parking, and exclusive uses.
Navigating the Fair Credit Reporting Act
June 28, 2007
Employers of all sizes use third-party consumer reporting agencies to conduct background investigations such as credit, criminal, education and employment background checks. Such investigations are labor-intensive, costly and require specialized knowledge (especially if the employer has a multi-state presence). Therefore, a third-party vendor is the natural choice for outsourcing such a task. However, employers should beware that outsourcing the background check process does not automatically insulate the employer from liability when it relies on the information in a report. Using such third party reports places the employer squarely within the myriad of requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ('FCRA'). 15 U.S.C. ' 1681.
Compliance Lesson from the Chiquita Case
June 28, 2007
In March of this year, Chiquita Brands agreed to pay a $25 million criminal fine for payments it made to a paramilitary group in Colombia. The payments were made by the Colombian subsidiary of Chiquita in order to protect the company's employees from threatened violence. Unfavorable press coverage emphasized payments by Chiquita to a 'terrorist group' and downplayed the threats made to Chiquita, which prompted it to make the payments in the first place.
Off-Label Marketing of Drugs and Medical Devices
June 28, 2007
Policing the marketing of drugs and devices was once primarily the preserve of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which focused on misleading labels and outright quackery. No longer. Nowadays, many federal investigations, worked jointly by the FDA, Department of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS), are fueled by the enormous financial recoveries that can be won from manufacturers accused of illegally promoting FDA-approved drugs or devices, bearing an FDA-approved label, for uses not approved by the FDA ('off-label' uses).
