Featured Expert Contributor – Intellectual Property (Patents)
Jeffri A. Kaminski, Partner, Venable LLP, with Ryan T. Ward, Associate, Venable LLP. Mr. Ward was a Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at the Washington Legal Foundation in the summer of 2009 prior to his third year at Texas Tech School of Law.
The Federal Circuit continues to struggle with determinations of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Alice decision (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)). The most recent decision, Intellectual Ventures, LLC. v. Symantec Corp., (Intellectual Ventures) indicates a developing schism between the newer members of the court and the old guard. Continue reading
When prohibiting or reducing “harmful” economic conduct proves either politically unpalatable or otherwise unachievable, governmental regulators often target speech about the conduct as a convenient alternative. Rather than ban the sale of tobacco or sugary drinks, for instance, federal, state, and local governments have imposed restrictions on advertising and other promotional speech. Unable to generate support for a second Prohibition, temperance proponents have attempted to chill alcohol consumption through speech limits, such as proscribing disclosure of alcohol-by-volume percentage on beer labels and even censoring ads for happy hours. In 2016, the so-called sharing economy became the government’s latest target regulating conduct by proxy. Thankfully, online short-term rental platforms like Airbnb are fighting back with First Amendment challenges. Continue reading
Featured Expert Column: Judicial Gatekeeping of Expert Evidence
By Evan M. Tager, Mayer Brown LLP, with Carl J. Summers, Mayer Brown LLP
Nearly a century ago, in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia—the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit—announced the general acceptance test for evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony. Over the next several decades, the general acceptance test itself became generally accepted. But since the US Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and the adoption of that standard in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, many states have replaced Frye with Daubert. In Motorola, Inc. v. Murray, __ A.3d __, 2016 WL 6134870 (D.C. Oct. 20, 2016), the en banc District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the District of Columbia’s appellate court, distinct from the federal DC Circuit) expressly dispensed with the Frye standard and adopted Rule 702. Continue reading
*Michelle Stilwell, the Mary G. Waterman Fellow at WLF, significantly contributed to this post.
In what is poised to become an extremely influential case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is currently deciding what to do after the federal government unlawfully took over the equity and leadership of one of America’s largest private insurance companies, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), during the 2008 financial crisis. The government, in order to prevent AIG from declaring bankruptcy, offered it the customary Federal Reserve Act § 13(3) loan in the extraordinary sum of $85 billion. However, in a virtually unprecedented move, the government conditioned this loan on receiving 80% of AIG’s equity via preferred stock. This was an offer AIG couldn’t refuse, and it effectively diluted AIG’s shares and all but eliminated the voting and equity rights of the existing shareholders. So what did AIG’s shareholders receive in return for the extreme devaluing of their shares? Nothing. Not yet anyway. The lower court below held, in a lawsuit brought by AIG’s largest shareholder at the time, that the government’s action was illegal, but that no damages would be awarded. It is now up to the Federal Circuit to provide justice for AIG’s shareholders—and to make sure that the government has an incentive to obey the law in future financial crises. Continue reading
Prior to the US Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, general jurisdiction existed over a business defendant in any state where it was incorporated, had its principal place of business, or its contacts were so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Under this expansive interpretation, corporations could be subject to lawsuits in unpredictable and often remote jurisdictions.
Daimler significantly narrowed the reach of general jurisdiction by holding that because Daimler and MBUSA were neither incorporated nor had their principal place of business in California, Daimler’s contacts with California were not enough to render it at home in the state. Continue reading
Today, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a long-awaited public meeting to consider how off-label information about medicines can be shared with physicians. Washington Legal Foundation staff attorney Greg Herbers will testify at the meeting, which FDA has entitled “Communications Regarding Unapproved Uses of Approved Medical Products.”
Since WLF’s landmark victories in the Washington Legal Foundation cases, courts have consistently upheld the First Amendment right to communicate truthful and non-misleading information about the off-label uses of medical products. For instance, in US v. Caronia, WLF represented an industry employee convicted of discussing a drug’s off-label benefits and won a reversal from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on First Amendment grounds. WLF filed an amicus brief in a second case, Amarin Pharma v. FDA, in which a US federal district court followed the rationale of Caronia. Those decisions presumably played a major part in FDA’s decision to reevaluate its approach to off-label communication.
The text of WLF’s testimony is available here. WLF will also submit written comments to FDA in December.