IP and Technology Transactions

Subscribe to IP and Technology Transactions via RSS

On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. In FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 756 (2013), the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) prevailed when the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-3 decision [1] that reverse payment settlements in Hatch-Waxman cases are subject to antitrust scrutiny, resolving a circuit split and impassioned debate among antitrust lawyers. This is only the second antitrust case in 20 years where the enforcers have prevailed. The Court, however, rejected the FTC’s position that reverse-payment settlements were presumptively illegal, ruling that they are subject to scrutiny under the rule of reason.Continue Reading FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?

Clinical trials are the lifeblood of biotech. Finding the right service providers (CROs, safety, IVRS, consultants, contract manufacturers and many others), as well as the right clinical investigators and sites, results in a complex web of legal obligations and potential liabilities. Limitation of liability clauses can reduce a party’s exposure if a contractual obligation is breached. More often, limitations of liability provisions are used to shift risk to the sponsor of the clinical trial. But, if your contracts are well negotiated and drafted, the risks can be carefully and fairly allocated between the parties in a balanced and reasonable manner. Because of the complexity of the legal relationships and liabilities found in clinical trials, this article is limited to a brief description of limitation of liability clauses, and their general strengths and weaknesses.Continue Reading Limiting Liability in Clinical Trials: Non-Lawyers, Lawyers Beware

The pressure to cut production costs for media works is larger than ever. One expense that should not be slashed, however, is the expense of registering a copyright in the work soon after it is created — whether that work is a written script, motion picture, a television episode, a commercial or a song. Considering that the standard Copyright Office filing fee for registration is between $35 (if filing electronically) and $45 (if filing the old fashion way on paper, which many still do), registration arguably provides a substantial dollar- to-dollar return on investment.Continue Reading For Artists with Original Works, It’s Buy Now or Pay Later

On May 15, 2007, in a divided decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted a new and significantly narrower interpretation of the immunity from liability for online service providers provided by the Communications Decency Act.  In Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com, LLC, Appeal Nos. 04-56916 and 04-57173, (click here) Ninth Circuit holds that service providers may be liable for content originating from users if they solicit the unlawful information, or categorize, channel, and limit the distribution of the information.Continue Reading NINTH CIRCUIT NARROWS CDA IMMUNITY