An article published by Bloomberg News on December 24 reported that drug maker Merck sued Actavis’ subsidiary Warner Chilcott in a federal court in Delaware over allegations that it attempted to sell a generic form of Merck’s NuvaRing before the expiration of its patent in 2018.
Actavis had confirmed that its seeks the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market generic versions of Merck’s NuvaRing, a contraceptive ring with revenue of over $490 million through this year’s third quarter.
Actavis also stated that Merck’s lawsuit will freeze the marketing of NuvaRing’s generic versions for up to 30 months or until a legal decision has been made. If the approval is granted, the FDA will provide Actavis a 180-day generic drug exclusivity.
As a business owner, protecting your company’s intellectual property is critical. At Arenson Law Group, PC, our lawyers help businesses in Cedar Rapids ensure their interests are protected and their businesses are running successfully. Call us at (319) 363-8199 to get the legal guidance and support your business needs.
In more than two decades of practice, I’ve found that there are some frequently asked questions about probate in Iowa. I provided answers to 9 of the most common questions in one of the first posts at my Iowa Planning and Probate blog. Although I didn’t expect it, that blog post has been the one most read so far, so it’s definitely worth sharing here. If these answers about Iowa probate don’t provide the information you need, feel free to contact me to discuss your situation. So without further ado, the questions and answers:
What is probate?
In the strictest sense, “probate” is (more…)
The United States Supreme Court has yet to consider whether the Search Incident to Arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to searches of cellphones, I-Pads, Laptops and other “smart” devices seized pursuant to a lawful arrest. The majority of jurisdictions to have considered the issue have determined the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to search your cellphone if it is recovered from your person or presence during a lawful arrest.
Allowing police officers to search items recovered incident to your arrest probably makes sense when law enforcement officers search a three dimensional object like a cigarette pack, but makes little sense when law enforcement officers search your cellphone or other “smart” device which possesses a “fourth dimension”, and the search may be better understood as a search of a place rather than as a search of a thing.
The depth and breadth of the information “housed” in your cellphone makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your pictures and videos look like your living room, makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your business and financial records look like your office, and makes the part of your cellphone that “houses” your private, personal information look like your bedroom.
Once courts abandon the three dimensional perspective, at least in the context of cellphones and other “smart devices”, and acknowledge the reality that such devices possess a fourth dimension and more closely resemble a “place” than an object, it becomes less defensible to treat these devices like cigarette packs. Because, from the fourth dimensional perspective, a search of such devices resembles the search of a place or “home” the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and particularity requirements become increasingly necessary to safeguard your significant privacy interests in the your phone.
Such an approach represents not only a more “workable” framework, but also a more intuitive and desirable one. Respect for our privacy rights only strengthens this position. Practically, if courts permit searches of the cellphone’s “fourth dimension”, courts should at the very least prohibit law enforcement officers from searching these devices incident to an arrest for a minor offense. The law simply cannot permit law enforcement to invade our smart devices incident to an arrest for a minor offense like a seatbelt violation.