Contrarily, The Supreme Court applied a more narrow focus on the question of law posed by the eleventh circuit and focused strictly on whether Adia was bound to a contract established prior to acquiring Nursefinders and Star Med. It also questioned if the purchase of Star Med, an already established competitor in the territory had, in fact, changed the dynamic of business competition in the disputed
The concept of therapeutic equivalence, as used to develop the List, applies only to drug products containing the same active ingredient(s) and does not encompass a comparison of different therapeutic agents used for the same condition (e.g., propoxyphene hydrochloride vs. pentazocine hydrochloride for the treatment of pain). Any drug product in the List repackaged and/or distributed by other than the application holder is considered to be therapeutically equivalent to the application holder's drug product even if the application holder's drug product is single source or coded as non-equivalent (e.g., BN). Also, distributors or repackagers of an 1 application holder's drug product are considered to have the same code as the application holder. Therapeutic equivalence determinations are not made for unapproved, off-label indications. FDA considers drug products to be
The informed consent issue as discussed is very much driven not by the medical procedure or research being done or what could arise from it. Some might say, is it necessary at all? Is it really worth the paper it’s written on if the validity can only be resolved in a court of law? Does the “informed consent” arise from the issue of legality or ethics? If from legality that means that ethics plays no part.
INTRODUCTION Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ express and implied warranty claims. Defendants claim Plaintiffs have failed to prove contractual privity, as required by California law to claim breach of warranty, and, as to Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness, DePuy argues that Plaintiffs cannot show the specific purpose for which Plaintiffs would use the Pinnacle metal-on-mental (“MoM”) hip system. Defendants arguments are without merit – Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that DePuy’s marketing heavily promoted the device specifically for young, active patients, a purpose specific enough to meet the requirements of California law. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have satisfied
Babyban should be held responsible for withholding information from its consumers. “A manufacturer can be found negligent even if the product met all regulatory requirements because, under some circumstances, a reasonably prudent manufacturer would have taken additional precautions” (Bagley, p. 255). In a similar case, GlaxoSmithKline, a large drug manufacture, failed to report crucial safety information on a drug, they ended up having a multi-million dollar settlement (GlaxoSmithKline,
I don’t agree with the court 's decision about the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser case because of many reasons. First, I think It 's morally wrong to sue somebody for a crop that is not theirs just for patenting. Second, the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case is an issue of intellectual property rights versus physical property rights. Whether patent rights take priority over the right of the owner of physical property to use his property, to what length can a patent put restrictions on the physical owner of the property as to what they may do with this property, including duplicating or producing it in any way without permission of the patent holder. According to the Center of Food Safety, as of 2005, 186 farmers had paid Monsanto a total of $15
In the pre-grant opposition of Nevirapine (pediatric suspension of Nevirapine Hemihydrates), the Assistant Controller denied the patent, by finding lack of inventive step in the absence of any disclosure of the advantage of smaller particle size (1-150μ) in the composition. By applying the test of patent eligibility, the denial was specifically on the ground of failure in placing the data relating to therapeutic effect of the known substance and the claimed substance (derivative), on
He profited from that exhibit. Rogers sued Koons under the copyright law. The court rejected Koon’s defence, saying it was a fair form of parody. The court argued that Koon could have made the same statement without imitating Roger’s work. Koon had to pay compensation to Rodgers.
Fair use is defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If you use as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement. Transformative can be known as vague, be aware, a lesson or experience that inspires change or causes a shift in viewpoint. (bit.law.com) Whether a use is fair use will depend on the specific facts of the use. Note that attribution has little to do with a fair use, unlike plagiarism, copyright infringement or non-infringement does not depend on whether you give credit to the source from which you copied.
they tried to accomplish this by buying a patent infringement claims lawsuit against its competitors including its major one The American Mutoscope & Biograph Company. First it ruled in Edison’s favor by ruling that Biograph did infringe Edison’s patent claims. Biograph fought back and appealed the ruling with that Edison did not invent motion-picture camera, he only invented the sprocket system that moved perforated film through the camera. Biograph won with the new ruling and stopped Edison from