Case Briefing
April 27, 2004
The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Verdicts
April 23, 2004
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Fraudulent Joinder
April 02, 2004
As most pharmaceutical and medical device products liability cases are based on state law claims, diversity jurisdiction may be the only way to obtain a federal forum. Plaintiffs often join non-diverse defendants, such as local doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, employees and/or sales representatives, in an attempt to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal of cases to federal court. Defendants -- who generally prefer to proceed in federal court -- may be able to remove such cases for fraudulent joinder using some of the following arguments.
IP Finance and Law: Four Vignettes
April 01, 2004
Intellectual property is an asset class and patents, prominent members of that class, are call options on the economic value of the covered technology. Because patent value can be substantial, and because the values of companies can be significantly impacted by the value of IP assets, the intersection of finance and patent law is increasingly common. In particular, here are four vignettes in which they intersect.
Net News
April 01, 2004
British Music Industry Takes Aim at Net Song Swappers The British music industry recently announced plans to issue legal warnings to the nation's most…
Can You? Should You? Must You?
April 01, 2004
As general counsel of a small public company, you discover that, for 2 years, a department head approved sending false invoices to customers, resulting in profits of at least $2 million. Although it stopped a year ago and is well concealed, the practice was intentional, and a half-dozen current employees were involved. You fear that the false invoices constitute at least mail and wire fraud. Moreover, if the victims find out, they might sue. What do you do?
Civil Litigation Implications of Corporate Employees' Criminal Acts
April 01, 2004
When corporate employees engage in criminal wrongdoing, the result is often civil litigation against their employer. The criminal conviction of such employees, whether by trial or plea, or their invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination, can have serious adverse consequences in related civil litigations against their employer, even if the employee (or former employee) is not a party. This article discusses the use of such evidence against corporations.
What the SAFETY Act of 2002 Means for Your Company
April 01, 2004
We all know that since 9/11, the American public has a heightened sense of anxiety about their personal safety. Our legislative body, sensing America's anxiety, created a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security ostensibly to protect us from terrorist threats. But, while doing so, Congress snuck in a compelling tort reform program. Hidden beneath the folds of the legislative verbiage creating the DHS, situated immediately before the miscellaneous provisions, lies a new program to incentivize and protect individuals and companies engaged in developing anti-terrorist technologies: the SAFETY Act of 2002. Surprisingly, the private sector, so far, has not voiced much enthusiasm for it.
Changes in International Civil Justice Law: The Gathering Storm
March 31, 2004
Europe's approach to civil liability law and litigation is changing. As part of the European Union's (EU) move toward a common economic culture, virtually every aspect of EU civil justice law and procedure is under review. Thus far, the laws governing product safety and commercial dealings between businesses and consumers have begun tilting toward greater liability for businesses. Whether it is strict product liability, class actions, lawyer advertising, or variations on the contingent fee, many of these changes have been seen in the United States and are starting to migrate across the Atlantic.
Practice Tip: Arguing Design 'Defect' Under Strict Liability or Warranty
March 31, 2004
Defect" in product liability law has two roots: from breach of warranty actions under contract law and from negligence under tort law. In early products liability cases, courts relied upon an implied warranty to permit recovery for personal injuries arising from defective goods. However, that cause of action required privity between the seller and the injured consumer, which could not always be satisfied. This led to the development of the strict liability doctrine in tort law, where privity was not required. Strict liability in tort remedies no longer needs to rely on a contractually based breach of implied warranty to compensate injured plaintiffs.
