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 197

Adding primary jurisdiction to the defense lawyer's toolbox
  • Epstein Becker Green
  • USA
  • August 19 2013

When the preemption defense is not available, it may still be possible to effectively dismiss a plaintiff's claim by arguing that the court should

Court finds coverage for consequential damages arising from product recall
  • Gray Plant Mooty
  • USA
  • January 16 2013

A Minnesota Federal District Court Judge recently ruled that the insured is entitled to defense and indemnification under its commercial liability

Insurance dispute in oatmeal recall resolved in favor of insured
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2013

A federal court in Minnesota has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by a company whose insurance carrier claimed it was not required to

Court directs litigants to take yogurt dispute to FDA
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed without prejudice state law-based consumer-fraud claims filed against a company that makes Greek yogurt not by straining it, a process essential to the traditional production of this thickened dairy product, but by adding milk protein concentrate (MPC

Court defers to FDA in dismissing plaintiff’s false advertising claim
  • Alston & Bird LLP
  • USA
  • December 11 2012

A court recently dismissed a putative class action alleging that General Mills and Yoplait violated the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by advertising and selling “Yoplait Greek" yogurt that was “neither yogurt nor Greek, as those terms are used in the industry and as defined by regulation”

Another medtronic preemption win
  • Dechert LLP
  • USA
  • April 20 2011

It's not a complete win, but 8 out of 9 ain't bad

Market definition spurs district court’s decision denying product ownership challenge
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • September 22 2010

The Federal District Court in Minnesota recently decided Ovation Pharmaceutical did not violate federal or state antitrust laws when it acquired Indocin IV and NeoProfen, the only two drugs approved for treatment of a specific heart condition that primarily affects premature babies, because the challengers failed to establish that the drugs were in the same product market

FTC seeks divestiture and disgorgement in challenge to consummated acquisition
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • December 29 2008

On December 16, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in federal district court challenging Ovation Pharmaceutical's completed acquisition of NeoProfen, a drug used to treat patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), a potentially deadly congenital heart defect affecting low birth weight premature infants

Brian D. Fergemann
  • Winston & Strawn LLP

Monique N. Bhargava
  • Winston & Strawn LLP