A U.S. judge has upheld a patent for Merck & Co.'s best-selling product, the asthma and allergy medication Singulair, handing Merck a victory in its battle to ward off early generic competition for the drug.

Wednesday's ruling by Judge Garrett Brown in federal court in Trenton, N.J., means that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Israeli generics manufacturer that challenged the Singulair patent, won't be able to start selling copycat versions in the U.S. until the expiration of patent protection in 2012. Teva could, however, appeal the decision in an effort to sell copies before then.

Singulair was the ninth best-selling prescription drug in the world last year, according to drug-data provider IMS Health. For the six months ended June 30, world-wide sales rose 6% to $2.3 billion. U.S. sales--those directly at stake in the Teva patent dispute--rose 6% to $1.5 billion in the first half of 2009.

Many analysts and legal observers thought Merck had the upper hand in the case because Singulair was an innovative approach to treating asthma when it hit the market in 1998.

But at a February trial in Trenton, Teva lawyers argued that the patent for Singulair was invalid because prior research would have taught anyone skilled in the art of drug development how to invent Singulair. Under patent law, so-called prior art can be grounds for invalidating a patent's claims. Teva also argued the patent was unenforceable because Merck misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when it applied for the patent.

Judge Sharon Keller is telling her side of the story for the first time nearly two years after Michael Wayne Richard was executed.

She'll continue testifying Wednesday. She was first called Tuesday to answer questions about refusing to keep the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals open past 5 p.m. when Richard's lawyers asked for more time to file their rushed appeal on Sept. 25, 2007.

Keller says the move wasn't a ruling on the merits of the request.

She says she received a call shortly before court closed about an appeal running late and that she knew it concerned the execution but that no explanation was given.

Prosecutors say 64-year-old Harold Goldstein got the maximum sentence Monday for violating the terms of his supervised release.

Goldstein was sentenced to seven years in federal prison in 2003 for using the name of a Northern California attorney to represent clients in court. He was also convicted of mail fraud for sending solicitation letters to inmates.

U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Thom Mrozek says Goldstein again started claiming he was a lawyer only days after he was released on May 1.

A federal appeals court has revived a discrimination lawsuit brought by black employees who claim they worked in a racially hostile environment at a Nucor Steel mill in South Carolina, attorneys said Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision issued Aug. 7 that the case against the Charlotte-based manufacturer can go forward with class-action status. It has been sent back to federal district court and will be tried in Charleston, S.C.

"While this class certification doesn't mean they've won ... the decision is a victory," lead attorney Robert L. Wiggins Jr. said in a statement. "Being involved in this case as a plaintiff has taken courage, but these individuals believed that it was important to change the horrific situation at Nucor for all black employees, and not just themselves."

The lawsuit, originally filed in December 2003, charged that racial slurs and monkey noises were broadcast over the radio system at the company's Huger, S.C. mill. The plaintiffs — seven black former and current Nucor employees — also claim that racially charged e-mails depicting blacks with nooses around their necks were circulated, some employees used racial slurs when referring to black workers and that the mill discriminated against blacks in making promotions.

The court told a federal judge to hold a hearing to decide whether evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial" could establish Davis' innocence. His case has become a rallying cry for death penalty opponents.

Davis' attorneys contend he deserves a new trial because new evidence proves he was mistakenly identified as the killer. They say several trial witnesses have recanted their testimony, and others who did not testify during the trial have said another man confessed to the killing.

"This is exactly what we asked for," said Jason Ewart, Davis' attorney. "It's been years since these witnesses have come forward, and they've never had their day in court. And now they will."

Davis was convicted 18 years ago for the 1989 slaying of Savannah, Ga., police officer Mark MacPhail, who was shot twice while working off-duty as a security guard at a bus station. He was gunned down after rushing to the aid of a homeless man who had been attacked.

Davis' execution has been delayed three times, including a ruling by an appeals court last year that gave the 40-year-old another chance to press his appeal. The panel rejected the appeal in April, and federal and state courts have repeatedly denied his request for a new trial.

Judge Sharon Keller is the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. She is on trial nearly two years after refusing to keep the court open in September 2007 with Michael Wayne Richard's (ruh-SHARD's) execution imminent and his lawyers scrambling to file an appeal.

Keller faces five counts of judicial misconduct. She sat quietly at the defense table as her special hearing got under way Monday. But she did stand to acknowledge that she planned to testify.

She could take the stand as early as Tuesday.

Oral arguments will be made in St. Paul before a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The NFL hopes for a quick ruling that would let it suspend the players for four games at the start of the season.

The players took the weight-loss supplement StarCaps, which contained an unlisted but banned diuretic that can mask the presence of steroids.

Their legal fight remains alive in a Minnesota state court. But the NFL is asking the federal appeals court to rule that the players' union contract and federal law trump state law in this case.