Select Page

Antitrust Law—Rejecting the “Scope of the Patent” Test in Analysis of Reverse Payments in Pharmaceutical Industry—In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. Aug. 29, 2012) (No. 12-265); 81 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2012) (No. 12-245)

May 15, 2013 | Case Comments, Number 2, Print Edition, Volume 46

The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act) prohibits businesses from contracting, combining, and conspiring to restrain trade or commerce.  Reverse-payment-patent-settlement agreements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies—whereby a brand-name-patent...

Evidence—Withholding Original Documents and Producing Copies for Trial Constitutes Spoliation Warranting Adverse Inference—Bull v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 68 (3d Cir. 2012)

May 15, 2013 | Case Comments, Number 2, Print Edition, Volume 46

When a party to litigation destroys relevant evidence, the judge may issue sanctions under the court’s inherent and statutory authority to punish spoliation of evidence.  The adverse inference sanction permits or compels the jury to conclude the destroyed evidence...

Admiralty & Maritime Law—Ninth Circuit Relocates “High Seas” Under Death on the High Seas Act—Helman v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc., 637 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011)

May 15, 2013 | Case Comments, Number 2, Print Edition, Volume 46

Article III of the United States Constitution extends federal judicial power to all cases arising under admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.  The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) in turn provides the exclusive, albeit monetarily limited, maritime remedy for wrongful...

Constitutional Law—Supreme Court of Minnesota Upholds Warrantless DNA Sample of Individual Convicted of Misdemeanor—State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012)

Feb 24, 2013 | Case Comments, Number 1, Print Edition, Volume 46

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect an individual’s privacy right from an unreasonable search or seizure.  However, courts have upheld the constitutionality of some searches when an individual’s...

Constitutional Law—Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Distinguishes Thompkins’s Unambiguous Invocation Requirement of Right to Remain Silent—Commonwealth v. Clarke, 960 N.E.2d 306 (Mass. 2012)

Feb 24, 2013 | Case Comments, Number 1, Print Edition, Volume 46

The United States Supreme Court famously held in Miranda v. Arizona that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination granted a series of required safeguards, and outlined a way a suspect can invoke his rights.  In 2010, the Court revisited this issue in...