|
|
|
  |
In re: Reprints Guidance
On April 21, 2008, WLF filed formal comments with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in opposition to FDA's draft Guidance for Industry on reprint practices regarding articles/medical texts that contain off-label information concerning FDA-approved drugs and medical devices. WLF reminded FDA that a federal court injunction (issued in 1998 in WLF v. Friedman) prohibits FDA from preventing manufacturers from disseminating peer-reviewed medical journal articles and medical texts that contain off-label information. WLF charged that the Draft Guidance violates the injunction and that FDA officials would be in contempt of court were they to adopt the Draft Guidance in final form. WLF argued that if FDA intends to go forward with new restrictions on manufacturer speech, it must revise them to ensure that they violate neither the injunction nor the First Amendment. WLF also argued that disseminating information about effective off-label uses serves a vital health care function. |
|
|
Day v. Bond
On April 18, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to review (and ultimately overturn) a federal appeals court ruling that dismissed a challenge to a Kansas statute that, WLF charges, violates the civil rights of U.S. citizens who live outside the State. The statute grants illegal aliens the right to attend Kansas universities at in-state rates but denies that same right to U.S. citizens who live outside of Kansas. WLF argued that the Kansas law violates a 1996 federal statute that prohibits States from granting more favorable tuition rates to illegal aliens than they grant to citizens. The lower federal courts dismissed the suit on procedural grounds. WLF filed its brief on behalf of Brigette Brennan, a Missouri resident who was forced to pay higher, out-of-state tuition rates during the five years she attended the University of Kansas. WLF's brief argued that the lower courts erred in ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to file the suit. |
|
|
SmithKline Beecham Corp v. PTO
On April 1, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down two new sets of regulations issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that would severely restrict the number of "continuation" applications a company may file based on its original patent application. The court ruled that the rules were substantive rather than procedural in nature, and thus, lacked statutory authority for their issuance. In its brief, WLF argued that such unlawful restrictions would deprive patent applicants of substantial property rights and constitute an unconstitutional "taking" of intellectual property rights without just compensation. |
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
May 6, 2008
WLF MEDIA BRIEFING
Biosimilars: Seeking A Pathway Balancing Timely Consumer Access & Innovation
Sandra J. P. Dennis, Deputy General Counsel for Health Care, Biotechnology Industry Organization
William B. Schultz, Partner, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Former FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy
Arnold I. Friede, Counsel, McDermott Will & Emery
 Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
 View Webcast
|
|
|
May 1, 2008
WLF MEDIA BRIEFING
Trade Policy v. National Security: The Challenge in Export Control and Foreign Investment Policy
William A. Reinsch, President, National Foreign Trade Council
Mark E. Plotkin, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Christopher R. Wall, Senior International Trade Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
View Webcast
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
March 28, 2008
WLF WEB SEMINAR SERIES
Uncivil Litigation: Trends in Lawyer Misconduct and How Courts are Responding
Michael I. Krauss, Professor of Law, George Mason University
Damon W.D. Wright, Partner, Venable LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
View Webcast
|
|
March 20, 2008
WLF WEB SEMINAR SERIES
State Attorneys General Suits:Courtroom & Legal Policy Strategies for Defeating the AG-Trial Lawyer Alliance
Brian Anderson, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP
Amber Taylor, Associate, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP
Download a PDF of the Invitation
Download Speaker Biographies
View Webcast
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
California v. General Motors
On April 15, 2008, WLF filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urging the court to reject an appeal filed by the State of California claiming that global warming is a public nuisance that has caused California to suffer beach erosion and other environmental impacts, and that the district court should award billions of dollars in damages against the six major automakers because their vehicles emit carbon dioxide. WLF argued in its brief that the district court was correct in dismissing the case on political question grounds because the case involves complicated scientific and policy issues that should be resolved by the political branches of government.
More Information:
4/17/2008: Press Release PDF
4/15/2008: Download a PDF of the
Brief
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Endangered Species Act Requires Enforceable Mitigation And Consideration Of Climate Change
By Joshua A. Bloom,a partner and and Thomas J. Boer, an associate with the law firm Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP in San Francisco.
Legal Backgrounder, May 2, 2008, 4 pages
Download PDF of the Publication
|
|
Has California Provided A New End-Run Around Preemption?
By Kelly Savage, a senior associate with Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP in San Francisco.
Legal Opinion Letter, May 2, 2008, 2 pages
Download PDF of the Publication
|
|
Liberty At Risk: Courts Must Preserve Traditional Rules Of Civil Justice System
By Anthony T. Caso, who maintains an appellate law practice in Sacramento, California at The Law Offices of Anthony T. Caso and previously served as Chief Counsel to the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Legal Backgrounder, May 2, 2008, 4 pages
Download PDF of the Publication
|
|
|
|
