|
[03/09] Manufacturer expands pet food recall
[03/09] Prius with stuck accelerator glides to safe stop
[03/08] Roche suspends arthritis drug study after deaths
[03/08] Toyota disputes critic who blames electronics
[03/05] Australian court: Vioxx doubled heart attack risk
More...
Articles
Diet Drugs
The weight-loss industry is booming in the United States, and probably will continue to grow as the nation experiences what the Surgeon General has deemed an "obesity epidemic." As a result, drug makers are constantly seeking to develop and market that lucrative "magic pill" that will facilitate weight loss. In fact, drug companies have been marketing diet pills in various forms for more than twenty-five years, and desperate patients have been more than willing to try them, often with tragic consequences. Sadly, in a quest to become healthier, unwitting users have subjected themselves to dangerous diet drugs, experiencing not an improvement in health, but rather serious health problems and even death.
More...
Auto Parts Liability
Few people go through life without experiencing at least one motor vehicle accident. Fortunately, most accidents are minor mishaps like the proverbial fender bender, but, sadly, some involve not only extensive property damage, but also serious personal injuries or even death. These accidents may result from a variety of causes, including reckless driving, faulty highway design, and defective motor vehicles and component parts. In the latter cases, when a defective product is involved, the injured parties may be able to recover their losses through a products liability lawsuit.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.
[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.
[03/02] Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. US
In plaintiff's action with the Court of International Trade challenging a determination that the multinational corporation provision, 19 U.S.C. section 1677b(d) (MNC Provision) did not apply to a company with affiliates in China and Vietnam, the court's decision is affirmed as the Department of Commerce acted in accordance with law in concluding that the MNC provision is not applicable when the non-exporting country is a nonmarket economy and normal value is based on a factors-of-production methodology.
[02/25] Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for patent infringement for patents relating to software for displaying the market for a commodity traded in an electronic exchange, judgment of district court is affirmed where: 1) defendant's infringed the asserted claims of one patent with one accused service product, but not willfully; 2) the two other accused products did not literally infringe, and as such, plaintiff is precluded from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 3) the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. section 102(b) does not apply; 4) there are no indefiniteness problems in the asserted claims; and 5) there is no finding of inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit.
[02/24] McAdams v. Monier, Inc.
In plaintiffs' action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, claiming that defendant failed to disclose that the color composition of its roof tiles would erode away well before the end of the tiles' represented 50-year lifetime, trial court's order denying certification of the proposed CLRA and UCL classes are reversed where: 1) as to the elements of liability and reliance, plaintiffs' CLR cause of action, based on the alleged failure to disclose is suitable for class treatment; and 2) trial court used improper criteria and made erroneous legal assumptions in denying certification of the proposed UCL class, and on remand, court is instructed to determine if the representative plaintiff meets the UCL standing requirements set forth in Tobacco II.
More...
|
