Role for Patents In Videogame Industry
September 28, 2006
For videogame developers, publishers and investors, the most important asset is the intellectual property rights they own or control in a game. All of the elements of a videogame ' the story, audiovisual elements, underlying computer code and even 'gameplay' elements (ie, that specify the way a user interacts with and experiences a game) ' are subject to one or more forms of intellectual property protection. Traditionally, intellectual property protection for videogames has been based upon either trade secret, copyright or trademark. Patents, however, are quickly becoming an important part of the videogame industry.
Liability Without Harm: Is There a New Source of Catastrophic Liability Lurking Within Your State's Consumer Protection Statute?
September 28, 2006
Lost benefit suits are especially threatening to product manufacturers because these claims are particularly susceptible to class aggregation. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits plaintiffs to assemble into classes when, among other things, they share 'questions of law or fact' and those common questions 'predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Ordinarily, injury and causation are sources of diversity between plaintiffs and, by extrapolation, impediments to class treatment. Plaintiffs who claim injury from tobacco, for example, frequently claim different injuries and different causal mechanisms and, therefore, typically may not assemble into classes. <i>See, e.g., Aspinall</i>, 442 Mass. at 392-93, 813 N.E.2d at 485-86. By dispensing with the injury and causation requirements, lost benefit suits destroy a source of diversity between plaintiffs and promote class treatment.
Managing Electronic Evidence
September 28, 2006
Discovery demands on in-house legal staff have changed drastically in recent years. Historically, complying with subpoenas and document production requests were quotidian chores for in-house legal staff. After receiving a complaint, counsel's office issued a standard 'document hold' to affected employees and directed that those involved in the case preserve their files and not destroy anything. Questions might arise, but they were manageable. What must be disclosed? What documents are privileged? How long will it take to retrieve documents from storage? How many staff hours will complying require? How much will it cost? Who bears the cost? Which discovery requests should be challenged?
Practice Tip: Minimizing Liability Exposure By Reporting Adverse Drug Experiences
September 28, 2006
In order to minimize potential product liability associated with pharmaceutical products, companies regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') should be vigilant in ensuring that adverse drug experiences ('ADEs') are reported to the FDA in a timely and complete manner. FDA regulations contain extensive requirements regarding the reporting of ADEs for companies involved in the distribution chain, such as manufacturers and distributors. Failure to report, when required, can result in an FDA enforcement action and exacerbate liability exposure. A proactive ADE collection and reporting system will place a company in a better position to address unanticipated issues that may arise after full-scale commercial marketing has begun. Therefore, companies must know their regulatory responsibilities and implement procedures to ensure that ADEs are collected and reported, as required by law. This article covers only some of the re-quirements and issues to consider.
Prescription Drug Litigation Pre-emption Following the FDA Preamble: The Defense Perspective
September 28, 2006
It has now been more than 9 months since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') issued its new labeling rule for prescription drugs with an extensive preamble analysis of how many state tort legal claims conflict with and accordingly are pre-empted by the its regulation of such drugs. The FDA re-emphasized its position that state tort law claims threaten its ability to pursue its statutory mandate of protecting public health through balanced labeling. It thus explained that 'under existing pre-emption principles, FDA approval of labeling under the [FDCA] pre-empts conflicting or contrary State law.' 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3933 (Jan. 24, 2006).
The Leasing Hotline
September 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
Case Notes
September 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Million Dollar Awards Can Amount to Much Less
September 28, 2006
In August, a San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded $10.3 million in economic and non-economic damages in an asbestos case brought by a 60-year-old man allegedly suffering from mesothelioma. <i>Barnes v. Thorpe Insulation Co.</i>, 446017. It may be one of California's 10 largest compensatory verdicts for asbestos cases in the last 15 years.
Fosamax and the Public Hazards Discovery Doctrine
September 28, 2006
In September 1995, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') approved Merck's compound alendronate for various uses, including the treatment of osteoporosis and Paget's Disease. Alendronate is marketed by Merck as Fosamax'. It is one of Merck's biggest sellers, with approximating $3.5 billion per year in sales.
