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 84

Briefing continues in Stewart v. Vivian, the certified conflict case concerning Ohio's Apology Statute, R.C. 2317.43
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 23 2017

Briefing is continuing in Stewart v. Vivian, Case No. 2016-1013 in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Stewart is the certified conflict case presently


Life sciences patent subject matter eligibility two steps forward, one step back
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2015

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its revised Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 on Dec


The Supreme Court unanimously says changes to retiree medical coverage a matter of contract analysisbut with a mild twist
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 28 2015

In what perhaps can be best described as a win for traditional contract analysis, the United States Supreme Court (the "Court") issued an opinion on


U.S. Supreme Court clarifies liability for opinions in registration statements
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • April 3 2015

Opinions in registration statements continue to be one of the most commonly litigated items under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Section


2016 antitrust developments: Foreshadowing 2017?
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 4 2017

It’s that time of year again, when we reflect on what happened during the prior year and prepare for another one. Let’s take a moment to look at some


Ohio federal court holds generic drug manufacturer not liable for inadequate warnings where plaintiff’s physicians did not read and rely on warnings
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • November 17 2015

In the case Fulgenzi v. PLIVA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144283 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2015), the United States District Court for the Northern


The Obamacare see-saw an opposing decision on subsidies
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 22 2014

Just hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Halbig v. Burwell, which held that tax subsidies made available under the


Obamacare takes an unexpected hit!
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 22 2014

A Federal Court of Appeals panel in Washington, D.C. today released a decision that, if upheld, would strike down one of the main pillars of the


The health care reform shared responsibility excise tax missing link: employer rights
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • July 17 2014

Back in 2011, I mentioned a missing link in the Health Care Reform Section 4980H shared responsibility employer excise tax scheme.42 U.S.C. Section


Sixth Circuit decision emphasizes the importance of expert testimony
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2014

The Sixth Circuit recently reinforced the importance of Reliability in expert testimony by upholding the exclusion of such testimony in a products