Defending Against Post-Sale Warning Claims
June 01, 2004
An unusual twist in the typical product liability case can occur when a plaintiff asserts a post-sale warning claim. (In this article, "product" does not refer to consumer products that are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.) Because a post-sale warning claim is not frequently encountered, such a claim can cause confusion, especially with respect to the relation between the post-sale warning claim and the other claims that a plaintiff is asserting.
Legislative Solutions to Toxic Torts: Congress and the Thimerosal and Asbestos Litigations Part One of a Two-Part Series
June 01, 2004
Over the course of the last 2 years, Congress has tried to find a legislative solution to two very different alleged toxic torts. In November 2002, a rider was attached to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that would have effectively brought one of the most recent toxic tort litigations ' the thimerosal litigation ' to an abrupt end. Throughout the spring and summer of 2003, Congress tried to establish a $115 billion national trust fund for perhaps the largest and oldest and possibly most abused toxic tort litigation ' the asbestos litigation. Neither of these attempts, for very different reasons, was successful ' the thimerosal rider was repealed in early 2003 and in November 2003, the Senate decided not to vote on the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003. What follows is an overview of those legislative initiatives.
Practice Tip: Recovering Under the Theory of Failure to Issue Post-Sale Warnings
June 01, 2004
Although a product may be reasonably safe when it is sold, a manufacturer that later learns of risks revealed by user operation may be held responsible for failure to issue post-sale warnings. The justification for a post-sale duty to warn arises from a manufacturer's unique and superior position to follow the use and adaptation of its products by consumers. The manufacturer is best placed to learn about post-sale defects or dangers discovered in the use of its products as compared with purchasers and users.
Case Notes
June 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Online: Learn How to File Electronically
June 01, 2004
For attorneys who wish to file electronically in the federal district courts, the Case Management — Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") site at <i>www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/cmEcf/</i> is very helpful. Go to the site and click on "Requirements." There you will find both the minimum and recommended configurations for hardware and software for both IBM compatible and Macintosh computers.
Is Bill Gates Public Enemy Number One?
June 01, 2004
Unfortunately, Americans these days know that terrorists can strike us at home, and anxiety about possible attacks ' from cyber assaults to the not-so-good old-fashioned kind ' is running high. <br>Of course, most Americans' vigilance against an attack is directed overseas, but should at least some of their attention, and that of anyone in e-commerce, focus on Redmond, Washington, the headquarters of Microsoft and its helmsman, Bill Gates?
IP Due Diligence: What Does It Mean to You?
June 01, 2004
The evaluation of the assets and liabilities of a business is referred to as a due diligence review. Most commonly, these evaluations determine the value of a business for purposes of investment or the establishment of a relationship with the business. Because the value of intellectual property has increased substantially recently and patent protection in many countries has expanded to cover software and business methods, businesses without IP assets and existing or potential IP-related liabilities are rare. With the consistent increase in damages for IP infringement and the possibility of business-crippling injunctions, it is likely that any business will be subject to, or will itself conduct, an IP due diligence.
In The Marketplace
June 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Re-examination: The Tail that Wags the Dog
May 01, 2004
IP litigators appear to have blinders on when it comes to patent re-examination. All eyes are focused on winning the big event, the courtroom victory. To have the verdict upheld on appeal garners the ultimate win. While chasing the big dog of litigation, parties may be overlooking the power that can be wielded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in a re-examination proceeding.
Case Notes
May 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest Product Liability cases from around the country.
