|
|
|
High court ruling limits international reach of patent laws
Court Feed News |
2017/02/24 08:40
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with California-based Life Technologies Corp. in a patent infringement case that limits the international reach of U.S. patent laws.
The justices ruled unanimously that the company's shipment of a single part of a patented invention for assembly in another country did not violate patent laws.
Life Technologies supplied an enzyme used in DNA analysis kits to a plant in London and combined it with several other components to make kits sold worldwide. Wisconsin-based Promega Corp. sued, arguing that the kits infringed a U.S. patent.
A jury awarded $52 million in damages to Promega. A federal judge set aside the verdict and said the law did not cover export of a single component.
The federal appeals specializing in patent cases reversed and reinstated the verdict.
Patent laws are designed to prevent U.S. companies from mostly copying a competitor's invention and simply completing the final phase overseas to skirt the law. A violation occurs when "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patent invention" are supplied from the United States to a foreign location.
Writing for the high court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law addresses only the quantity of components, not the quality. That means the law "does not cover the supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention," Sotomayor said.
Only seven justices took part in the ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts heard arguments in the case, but later withdrew after discovering he owned shares in the parent company of Life Technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Florida Docs Allowed to Ask Patients About Guns
Headline News |
2017/02/23 16:40
|
A federal appeals court has cleared the way for Florida doctors to talk with patients about whether they own guns.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that key provisions of a 2011 law that restricted such speech violate the First Amendment.
Three-judge panels of the same court had issued conflicting rulings in a long-running challenge to the law brought by 11,000 medical providers and others. The case has become known as Docs vs. Glocks.
Backed by Gov. Rick Scott, the law prohibited doctors from asking patients about gun ownership unless it was medically necessary. Doctors say asking about guns is a safety issue and could save lives.
While ruling that much of the law violates free-speech rights, the court said some parts could remain in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Missouri not required to name execution drug's source
Legal World News |
2017/02/22 16:41
|
A Missouri appellate court has ruled that the state's prison officials aren't obligated to publicly reveal the source of the drug used to execute prisoners.
The appellate court's Western District decided Tuesday to overturn a 2016 trial court ruling that found the state wrongly withheld documents that would identify pharmaceutical suppliers, The Kansas City Star reported.
The appeals court agreed with the state that a law that protects the identity of the state's execution team applies to those who supply the execution drug pentobarbital.
Major drug companies for the past several years have refused to allow their drugs to be used in executions. Missouri and many other active death penalty states refuse to disclose the source of their drugs, though the sources are widely believed to be compounding pharmacies ? organizations that make drugs tailored to the needs of a specific client. Those pharmacies do not face the same approval process or testing standards of larger pharmaceutical companies.
The appeals court ruling said that disclosing the identities of "individuals essential to the execution process" could hinder Missouri's ability to execute the condemned.
Several states also are facing legal challenges to lethal injection practices. Just last month, a federal judge found Ohio's latest lethal injection procedure unconstitutional while Texas sued the Food and Drug Administration over execution drugs that were confiscated in 2015. In Oklahoma last year, a grand jury criticized state officials charged with carrying out executions, describing a litany of failures and avoidable errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trial court election changes considered by North Carolina House
Legal World News |
2017/02/21 16:41
|
Some Republicans are set on returning all North Carolina state judicial elections to being officially partisan races again.
A law quickly approved in December during a special election directed statewide races for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to become partisan starting in 2018. Now the state House scheduled floor debate Wednesday on legislation extending that to local Superior Court and District Court seats next year, too.
Having partisan races means candidates run in party primaries to reach the general election. Unaffiliated candidates could still run but would have to collect signatures to qualify.
Judicial races shifted to nonpartisan elections starting in the mid-1990s in part as an effort to distance judicial candidates from politics. But Republicans today say party labels help give voters some information about the candidates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK court says income threshold for foreign spouses is lawful
Headline News |
2017/02/20 16:41
|
Britain's Supreme Court says the government is entitled to set a minimum-income threshold for people wanting to bring foreign spouses to the country, a measure introduced to ensure immigrants won't draw on public welfare funds.
But the court says the way the rules have been implemented is unlawful.
Since 2012, Britons who want to bring spouses from outside the European Union to the U.K. must earn at least 18,600 pounds ($23,000) a year.
Several people who were rejected under the rules took the government to court, arguing the law breached their right to a family life.
The judges ruled Wednesday that the income requirement was lawful but had been implemented in a "defective" way.
They said authorities must consider the welfare of children and whether applicants have other funding sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South African court rules against ICC withdrawal
U.S. Legal News |
2017/02/18 16:41
|
A South African court has ruled that the government's decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court was unconstitutional.
A judge in the North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday instructed the government to revoke its notice of withdrawal from the human rights tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands.
South Africa's main opposition party had gone to court, saying the government's notice was illegal because the South African parliament was not consulted.
South Africa's withdrawal announcement followed a 2015 dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. Al-Bashir was allowed to leave South Africa even though a local court ordered authorities to stop him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
