|
|
|
Court: Judges can consider new patent evidence
Court Watch |
2012/04/18 09:53
|
The Supreme Court says federal judges can review unsubmitted patent evidence when inventors challenge their rejection by the Patent and Trademark Office.
Gilbert Hyatt asked for patents relating to a "computerized display system for processing image information" in 1995. They were rejected and he sued in federal court. But Hyatt offered judges evidence of the suitability of his application that he never showed to patent officials. Patent officials asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to dismiss the case because Hyatt never showed them his evidence.
But Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the unanimous decision on Wednesday there are "no evidentiary restrictions" beyond the normal ones in these cases. Courts, however, can consider whether inventors could have shown their new evidence to patent officials, he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Rules For Private Lawyer Hired By CA City
Law Center |
2012/04/17 09:31
|
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that private individuals hired temporarily by local governments have the same protection against civil rights lawsuits as public employees.
Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday that it makes no sense to treat people differently because one person is a full-time government employee and another has been retained for a discrete task.
The court sided with attorney Steve Filarsky, who was hired by the city of Rialto, Calif., to investigate the possible misuse of sick leave. Filarsky and several full-time Rialto employees were sued by a firefighter who was under investigation.
Lower courts threw out claims against all the city employees, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco said Filarsky's case was different because he was not employed by Rialto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court weighs overtime pay for drug sales reps
Breaking Legal News |
2012/04/17 09:30
|
A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Monday weighed a potentially costly challenge to the pharmaceutical industry's practice of not paying overtime to its sales representatives.
The justices questioned whether the federal law governing overtime pay should apply to the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.
Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug.
Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among several justices who wondered about limits on overtime opportunities if the court were to rule for the sales reps. A court filing by the industry said drug companies could be on the hook for billions of dollars in past overtime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Class Action |
2012/03/19 09:48
|
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of First Solar Inc. between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
First Solar engages in the design, manufacture and sale of thin-film semiconductor solar modules and photovoltaic solar power systems in the United States and internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain solar module manufacturing flaws on the Company’s earnings; (2) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased First Solar securities between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have until May 14, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US appeals court backs graphic cigarette labels
Court Watch |
2012/03/18 09:49
|
A federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring new, bigger graphic warning labels on cigarette packs.
The lawsuit was filed in Kentucky. It's one of two suits by tobacco companies against the federal rules that would make them slap large images on cigarette packs depicting the health ravages of smoking.
The other case has so far resulted in a federal judge in Washington blocking the new requirement, arguing last month it violated free speech. That decision is being appealed by the government.
But on Monday, an appeals court in Ohio ruled 2-1 to uphold parts of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which also restricts how tobacco products may be marketed.
A lawyer for N.C.-based R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company did not immediately return a request for comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court allows Edwards to hire mistress's lawyers
Breaking Legal News |
2012/03/16 10:01
|
Former presidential candidate John Edwards got his wish Thursday and is changing his defense team ahead of his criminal trial on charges of campaign finance violations, hiring the same attorneys who once helped his mistress in a lawsuit over the couple's alleged sex tape.
The former U.S. senator from North Carolina testified under oath that he understood a jury might puzzle over the fact that lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham would be representing him after previously representing his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
Edwards faces charges that he broke federal campaign finance laws, allegedly using nearly $1 million from two wealthy donors to hide the pregnant mistress and prevent a scandal from erupting as he campaigned for the White House in 2008. He has pleaded not guilty.
U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles told Edwards that shaking up his defense team was likely causing him stress, something the former senator's doctor said in a private letter to the judge Edwards should avoid to protect his health. The judge asked Edwards whether he was taking any narcotics or other medications that might fog his judgment before trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action
Class Action |
2012/03/15 09:14
|
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Nevsun Resources Ltd. between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Nevsun, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of mineral properties, including the Bisha Property, a gold, copper, silver and zinc mine in Eritrea, Africa.
The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Nevsun’s mining activities at the Bisha mine produced a material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (ii) the amounts of gold and gold ore recovered from the Bisha mine were materially less than estimated by the Company's reserve estimate, a situation which defendants knew or had reason to know based on data routinely collected throughout the Class Period from the Bisha mine; (iii) Nevsun was progressing through the ore body at the Bisha mine much more quickly than planned, in order to maintain gold production at a rate that would not reveal to investors that the amount of gold was materially less than the Company’s estimate; (iv) the Company was aware that its resource model was materially defective because the actual amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the Company's reserve estimate previously disseminated to the investing public; and (v), Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the Bisha mine.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Nevsun common stock between March 31, 2011 and February 6, 2012, you have certain rights, and have 60 days from March 13, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.
www.glancylaw.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
