Archive for the ‘Legislation’ Category

Pharma Industry Challenges Drug Take-Back Law

Monday, December 17th, 2012

The pharmaceutical industry – represented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, (“PhRMA”), the Generic Pharmaceutical Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization - is challenging an Alameda County, California ordinance that requires the pharma industry to  be  responsible for running — and paying for — a program that would allow consumers to turn in unused medicines for proper disposal.   Drug companies have to submit plans for accomplishing it by July 1, 2013.  The pharma industry filed its lawsuit on December 7, 2012.

Such take-back programs exist; however, most existing programs are run and paid for by local or other government agencies.

Supporters of the ordinance argue that the industry that profits from the sales of these products should have the financial responsibility for proper management and disposal.  In other words, this law does not really enact new programs.  Rather, it shifts the burden of these programs from taxpayers to the pharmaceutical companies.

The pharma industry counters that the law is unconstitutional.   PhRMA’s general counsel, James Spears, asserts, ““They are telling a company in New Jersey that you have to come in and design and implement and pay for a municipal service in California.  This program is one where the cost is shifted to companies and individuals who are not located in Alameda County and who won’t be served by it.”

Mr. Spears said it would be best left to sanitation departments and law enforcement agencies, which must be involved if narcotics, like pain pills, were to be transported.

Alameda’s ordinance is based in part on on the system in British Columbia and two other Canadian provinces.

This should be an interesting case to watch.  On balance, we suspect the ordinance will ultimately be upheld.  From our perspective, there is really nothing unconstitutional about the law.   If a company based in New Jersey can sell its products in Alameda county there is really no hardship is operated a disposal program there.

The original complaint may be found here.

Posted in Business of TMs, Legislation, Litigation, Pharmaceuticals | No Comments »

New USPTO Fee Schedule

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Effective September 26, 2011, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office fees will increase.  The increase comes as a result of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which President Obama signed into law on September 16, 2011.

At this time, increased fees will apply to patent matters only.  As of September 26, 2011, trademark processing fees will remain the same.  Many patent fees are expected to increase by 15%.

According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the new law will afford more certainty for patent applicants and owners, and provide the USPTO the resources needed to operate efficiently and issue high-quality patents.  Implementation of the new law will occur over a period of months, and our USPTO team will seek input and provide updates all along the way.

The current fee schedule may be found here.

The new fee schedule, going into effect on September 26, 2011, may be found here.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Otherwise, check back here for future updates.

Posted in Announcements, General, Government Action, Legislation, Patents, Trademarks, USPTO | No Comments »

New University Rules

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Effective this month, colleges and universities that don’t do enough to combat the illegal file sharing on their computer networks put themselves at risk of losing federal funding.

One provision of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008  makes institutions of higher learning forced allies of the entertainment industry’s campaign to stamp out unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music, movies and TV shows.

According to the Act, which went into effect yesterday, institutes of higher learning must  “effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material by users of the institution’s network” without hampering legitimate educational and research use.

Despite initial opposition about invading students’ privacy and doing the entertainment industry’s dirty work for it, college and university officials are generally satisfied with regulations since many such institutions have had such systems in place for years.

The Motion Picture Association of America, one of the entities that pressed for the legislation, is encouraged by what campuses are doing but believe it’s too early to tell whether it will ultimately curb piracy, according to MPAA spokesperson, Elizabeth Kaltman.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Copyrights, Legislation, Technology | No Comments »

President Signs H.R. 683 into Law

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006

On Friday, October 6, 2006, President Bush signed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 into law (H.R. 683).  The took effect immediately upon signing.

On a personal note, I am pleased to see this law come into being since I drafted the original complaint in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (a division of Victoria’s Secret) on behalf of V Secret Catalogue.  Though Victoria’s Secret won at the trial court level (on the dilution claim – not the trademark infringement claim), the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the appeals court’s reversal on the grounds that Victoria’s Secret failed to prove actual damages.

The new law puts the meaning back in the legal doctrine of dilution, reverses the Supreme Court’s requirement that a dilution plaintiff prove actual damages, embraces the legal theory put forth by Victoria’s Secret in its original complaint and, in the words of the bill’s sponsor, “clarifies a muddied legal landscape and enables the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to operate as Congress intended.”

Posted in Dilution, Government Action, Legislation, Trademarks | No Comments »