Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
BURLINGTON, Vt. — A federal judge in Vermont on April 7 denied Monsanto Co.’s motion to exclude the opinions of two experts for the Burlington School District (BSD) in its lawsuit alleging contamination from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), saying that he found no reason to exclude their opinions because they are based on Monsanto’s own statements about its responsibilities to protect consumers and the planet. He also said the opinions in question “appear to be supported by a substantial documentary record.”
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A district court did not err in finding that a pollution exclusion bars coverage for an underlying bodily injury claim stemming from carbon monoxide exposure because carbon monoxide qualifies as a pollutant and the carbon monoxide was dispersed, as required by the pollution exclusion, from a portable heater, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 7 in affirming the lower court’s ruling in favor of an insurer.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held that U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly denied relief to an air conditioning patent holder that claimed that certain products imported into the United States infringed its patents; the panel affirmed findings that certain claims of the patent were invalid as anticipated, while the remaining claims required elements that the accused products lacked.
CINCINNATI — Affirming that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act expressly preempts parts of Tennessee pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) laws, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 7 called Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n v. Mulready “instructive” and concluded that the laws’ any-willing-provider (AWP) and incentive provisions that apply to self-funded health plans are impermissibly connected with ERISA.
SPOKANE, Wash. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals partly reversed a lower federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a health care organizations management liability insurer in a lawsuit seeking to enforce an underlying $2.4 million consent judgment against its inpatient substance abuse treatment facility insured, holding that the policy may provide partial coverage for a complaint even if the complaint contains some excluded sexual abuse claims.
SEATTLE — A manufacturer that, along with its insurance company, settled a personal injury lawsuit cannot assign its rights to an alleged legal malpractice claim to its insurer, a Washington appeals panel held April 6 in answering a certified question, finding that there is a potential conflict between the insured and the insurer after the insurer defended the insured pursuant to a reservation of rights to deny coverage.
SAN FRANCISCO — Epic Games Inc. on April 6 filed a motion for reconsideration of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals order issued the same day granting a motion by Apple Inc. to stay its mandate affirming a lower court judgment finding Apple in contempt of a court-ordered injunction enjoining Apple from certain anticompetitive practices on its App Store in an antitrust dispute with Epic.
LAS VEGAS — A federal judge in Washington did not clearly err when finding that an exotic dance bar could not show that a “bikini barista” coffee shop’s use of marks containing the phrase “Foxy Lady” were sufficiently similar to the bar’s own marks containing the phrase, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, affirming the judge’s denial of the bar’s request for default judgment and the subsequent dismissal.
CHICAGO — A putative class case over allegations that an employer breached its fiduciary duty by offering an option in its self-funded health plan that offers “no financial or medical benefit” compared to cheaper options and failed to inform plan participants of that fact has survived dismissal, with a Chicago federal judge ruling that the plaintiffs have standing and that their claims are plausible.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it described as a matter of first impression, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Indiana federal judge’s findings that a fencing manufacturer could not correct a patent to add the name of an undisputed co-inventor who could not be contacted because the co-inventor was a “party concerned” for correction proceedings; the panel also agreed that the patents were invalid for omitting the co-inventor.
CINCINNATI — Applying the preemption doctrine outlined in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon to a dispute over multiemployer fund contributions that involves the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 affirmed all challenged decisions in favor of the funds — even though one panel member penned a concurring opinion to explain her view that Garmon preemption is on “shaky footing.”