Federal District Court

Section 7 - authorizes the EPA to move directly to Federal District Court against chemical substances or mixtures which are imminent hazards. 

In 62 percent of the cases involving litigation with the first and second generic applicants, brand-name companies initiated patent litigation in just five federal judicial districts. These were the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Indiana, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of Florida. Thus, these courts have more experience with ANDA patent infringement litigation than most other federal district courts. ... 

The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 includes civil penalties for violation of the drug sample provisions of the FD C Act. The law provides that a manufacturer or distributor who violates these provisions is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 50 000 for each of the first two violations resulting in a conviction in any 10-year period, and for not more than 1 million for each violation resulting in a conviction after the second conviction in any 10-year period. These penalties may be imposed only by a Federal District Court. FDA has no administrative authority to impose any civil penalties imder these provisions. 

The federal district court ruled that the statute was not vague, because it addresses an understandable core of banned guns and adequately puts gun owners on notice that their weapon could be prohibited. The Court also ruled that the law did not violate anyone s equal protection rights any burden on those rights was acceptable because the rationality of the link between public safety and proscribing assault weapons is obvious. Finally, under the lesser standards protecting commercial speech under the First Amendment, no violation of free speech rights was found. 

Gottlieb, Alan M. Gun Rights Affirmed The Emerson Case. Bellevue, Wash. Merril Press, 2001. Recounts the arguments and ruling in a federal district court that for the first time affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. (Note that an appeals court subsequently found against the defendant but left the Second Amendment interpretation intact.)... 

The matter of whether the coho salmon were endangered also represents junk science. In September 2001, a Federal district court in Eugene, Oregon (.Alsea Valley Alliance v. Donald L. Evans), ruled that the government had improperly counted only... 

U.S. federal district court judge rejects a U.S. Justice Department attempt to overturn Oregon s physician-assisted suicide law. The Justice Department claimed that the state law violated the federal Controlled Substances Act. 

Approximately 30% of patents litigated at the federal district court level are found to be both valid and infringed. 

Yamanouchi filed suit against Danbury for infringement, and the case was heard in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York, where Yamanouchi prevailed. Danbury appealed to the CAFC, still alleging that claim 4 of U.S. 4,283,408 was obvious in view of a combination of references. In its assertions, Danbury cited... 

The 850 patent described the COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes as well as assays useful for distinguishing whether a compound was a selective inhibitor for the COX-2 enzyme. The 850 patent also described methods of using COX-2 selective compounds as well as their formulation, routes of administration, possible effective doses, and suitable dosage forms. On the day that the 850 patent issued, the University of Rochester sued Pfizer, G. D. Searle, and related parties in a federal district court alleging that Pfizer s marketing of Celebrex and Bextra infringed several claims of the patent (including claim l).22... 

Federal District Court Records of the First Circuit Court, Boston, Massachusetts. Additional information was provided on drug charges by New England-based officials of the Drug Enforcement Administration in... 

Section 106, entitled "Abatement Action," is the enforcement section. Undersubsection (a), when the President determines that an actual or threatened release of a hazardous substance presents "an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or environment," he may direct the Attorney General to bring an action in a federal district court (against unspecified persons) to obtain "such relief as the public interest and equities of the case may require." The President also may take other unspecified action, including issuing such orders (to unspecified persons) as may be "necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment."... 

With the blossoming of biotechnology in the 1980s and, more recently, of genomics, a whole new speciality in patent law has developed. In general, it is viewed that the principles of chemical patent practice apply equally to the biotechnology field. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which is the U.S. Federal Court that hears all patent appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office and any Federal District Courts) has affirmed this in their decisions. Biotechnology inventions must satisfy the standard statutory... 

In the United States, this is a civil action brought in the federal courts. The specific federal district court in which a patent owner can sue an infringer is governed by federal law. Patent litigation is very expensive and time-consuming. For this reason, it is not entered into without careful consideration of the consequences and analysis of all options available. In recent years, various alternative dispute-resolution proceedings have been used more often. 

In 1988, researchers at the Rand Corporation analyzed product liability cases filed in the Federal District Courts between 1974 and 1986 to identify trends in the number of cases over time and their concentration within particular industries and products (1 15). They focused on the Federal court system because of the availability of a single computerized data system. However, these data have several limitations ... 

If the applicant is not successful in overcoming the examiner s rejections and the examiner makes the rejections final, several options remain. Again the applicant may simply abandon the application and, if the application has not been and will not be published, retain the invention as a trade secret. Or, the applicant can refile the application as a divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part application and continue prosecution in the PTO. The applicant may also appeal the examiner s rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences within PTO. If not satisfied with the Board s decision, the applicant may appeal that decision either to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on the record before the PTO or to a federal district court for a de novo review. If the examiner s position is overturned, the Federal Circuit or the district court can order the PTO to issue the patent. Appeal to either the Federal Circuit or a federal district court destroys the secrecy of the application as well as that of the record of the proceedings within the PTO and thus destroys any trade secrets that may have been contained therein. 

---