We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 78

Supreme Court Limits Owner Rights After a First Sale of a Patented Product
  • Baker Botts LLP
  • USA
  • May 30 2017

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), and


First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Former Sales Representative’s False Claims Act Claims Against Medical Device Manufacturer
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 22 2016

On December 16, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Hagerty v. Cyberonics, Inc. (Case No


British Columbia Labour Relations Board Accepts Application Using E-Signed Union Membership Cards
  • Buckley Sandler LLP
  • Canada
  • August 18 2016

Recently, the British Columbia Labor Relations Board (Board) issued a decision accepting a trade union’s application under the Labour Relations Code


Third Circuit establishes "refined" standard for determining whether a joint employment relationship exists under the FLSA
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2012

In In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, No. 112883, 2012 WL 2434747 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit established a "refined" test for determining whether joint employment exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"


Using a Rule 12(f) motion to strike class allegations in the Ninth Circuit: the aftermath of Whittlestone
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2011

Last year, the Ninth Circuit curtailed the use of Rule 12(f) motions to strike in a case of first impression called Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010


Twice nice?
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • September 29 2011

Every now and then there’s a piece of litigation that boldly goes where no court has gone before and opens up a host of new legal issues


Court orders government to produce electronic data in usable form; recognizes need for e-discovery rules in criminal cases
  • Bracewell LLP
  • USA
  • September 22 2011

Affirming that issues concerning electronically stored information (ESI) are confined neither to civil matters nor private-party litigants, a federal district court this month ordered prosecutors to reproduce discovery in a reasonably useful format, mirroring the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure


Implications of I.O.M.
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2011

The other day, the Institute of Medicine came out with its long-awaited and it seems to us, rather short on specifics report, “Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years,” on the FDA’s 510k “substantial equivalence” clearance process for (somemost) medical devices


The Supreme Court reins in “stream of commerce” personal jurisdiction
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • June 28 2011

In the last two Supreme Court cases we have been following this term, the Court took a critical look at the stream of commerce basis for personal jurisdiction and, as we hoped (and expected), ruled in defendants favor in both


Generic drug manufacturers and failure to warn: what duty is there after Pliva v. Mensing?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 27 2011

The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2011, that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued for a failure to warn under state tort law, as long as their labeling complies with the FDA mandated labeling for the innovator drug product