Search Results (1435)
Documents on Litigation, Pharmaceuticals, Health Care
Show: results per page
|The Federal Court finds two Generic Company’s Allegations to be Unjustified|
Adrian J. Howard, Beverley Moore, Chantal Saunders, Ryan Steeves; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
July 21, 2014, previously published on July 10, 2014Two PM (NOC) decisions relating to the same patent were recently released by the Federal Court. In both cases, the applications were allowed, prohibiting the Minister from issuing an NOC to both Cobalt and Apotex for their generic versions of Allergan’s drug. The Court’s reasons are...
|Even in Privacy Cases, Risk of Injury Does not Always Equal Injury|
Kevin M. McGinty; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
July 18, 2014, previously published on July 16, 2014It’s an ancient conundrum; if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Privacy litigation may well offer the closest jurisprudential equivalent; if data is stolen, but no one does anything with it, has there been an injury? A recent Illinois state...
|Canada Patent Litigation: Federal Court Rules “Enhanced Disclosure” Requirement for Sound Prediction Applies Only To “New Use” Patents|
Sanjaya Mendis, David Tait; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
July 17, 2014, previously published on July 11, 2014On July 2, 2014, Mr. Justice Rennie of the Federal Court released his judgment and reasons in Astrazeneca Canada Inc v. Apotex Inc., 2014 FC 638 dismissing AstraZeneca’s action for infringement and granting Apotex’s counterclaim for a declaration that Canadian Patent 2,139,653 (the...
|Supreme Court Rules Some Employers Exempt From ACA Contraception Mandate|
Craig O. Sieverding; Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C.;
July 15, 2014, previously published on July 1, 2014In a widely anticipated decision issued on June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, as it applies to closely-held corporations, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
|The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 25: What Hobby Lobby Means for the Affordable Care Act—Absolutely Nothing|
Alden J. Bianchi; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
July 10, 2014, previously published on July 7, 2014To call the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. much-anticipated or highly controversial is an understatement. And, to be clear, any time the Supreme Court weighs in on bed-rock constitutional principle—particularly as it affects the church-state...
|The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia clarified the limits on punitive damages and the scope of the states Medical Professionals Liability Act, Nursing Home Act, and law of fiduciary duty in nursing home negligence cases.|
Richard J. Medoff; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
July 9, 2014, previously published on June 2014In Manor Care, Inc. v. Douglas, a case involving the appeal of a $91.5 million jury verdict in a nursing home negligence case, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that: (1) the verdict form did not allow the jury to award damages to non-parties, (2) the Medical Professionals...
|Impact of Hobby Lobby: Closely Held Corporations May Object to ACA’s Contraceptive Mandate|
Goldberg Segalla LLP;
July 8, 2014, previously published on July 2, 2014In a highly anticipated decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. --- (June 30, 2014), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) as applied by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to closely held...
|Is the DOJ FCPA Enforcement Hegemony Dead?|
Alexandra M. Gorman, Michael K. Loucks; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
July 3, 2014, previously published on June 26, 2014For nearly 15 years, the United States has had the worldwide corruption enforcement stage to itself, reaping billions of dollars in fines and settlement payments from companies that have acknowledged engaging in bribery in foreign countries. That monopoly, however, may soon end. In a report...
|Supreme Court: Lanham Act Suit Not Preempted By FDA Regulation|
Keller Heckman LLP;
June 20, 2014, previously published on June 12, 2014The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that competitors may file an action under the Lanham Act to challenge the name, label, marketing and advertising of beverages and other food regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.* Neither the...
|Compliance with FDA Regulations May Not Protect a Company From the Risk of Liability to Competitors via Unfair Competition Challenges|
Douglas J. Behr, Alyssia J. Bryant, Melvin S. Drozen, Arthur S. Garrett; Keller and Heckman LLP;
June 20, 2014, previously published on June 16, 2014On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held that one competitor may sue another under the federal Lanham Act for false, misleading, or deceptive advertising and labeling of its food and beverage products even though the labeling may conform with FDA regulations. The Supreme Court took the...