St. Jude Medical, Inc. announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Volcano Corporation for patent infringement. The global medical device company says that several products distributed by Volcano have infringed on patents. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
In the lawsuit, St. Jude alleges that Volcano products like PrimeWire pressure guide wire products infringe on key patents used for the St. Jude Medical PressureWire technology platform that the company acquired from Radi Medical Systems AB in December 2008.
“St. Jude Medical has made significant investments in the interventional cardiology space, including the coronary assessment and more recently the coronary imaging markets,” said Frank Callaghan, president of the St. Jude Medical Cardiovascular Division. “From clinical research to important product advancements, Radi Medical Systems and now St. Jude Medical have contributed considerably to the success of this marketplace. As a company that values the innovations we bring to the marketplace, we intend to protect our intellectual property.”
The patent lawsuit follows the acquisition of LightLab Imaging, Inc. by St. Jude Medical, which is also involved in its own litigation against Volcano.
It’s interesting to note that two former St. Jude executives serve on Volcano’s board, including former Chairman and CEO Ronald Matricaria and Michael Coyle, a former president of its Cardiac Rhythm Management division.
St. Jude’s suit seeks injunctive and monetary damages.
If you own a patent, it is important that you protect your intellectual property. If you think that someone else has violated your patented ideas, it is best to speak with a patent attorney to be apprised of your rights.
With childhood obesity rates going through the roof, some think that desperate measures need to be taken. That may explain why last month, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) served McDonald’s with a notice of intent to sue if the fast food restaurant continues to promote Happy Meals with toys.
According to CSPI’s letter of intent, they are basing the potential lawsuit on the fact, they believe, McDonald’s is using toys to market to small children in a deceptive manner under the consumer protection laws in a number of states, including California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and the District of Columbia.
The letter, in part, states that “McDonald’s practices are predatory and wrong” and “illegal, because marketing to kids under eight is inherently deceptive, because young kids are not developmentally advanced enough to understand the persuasive intent of marketing.”
In the company’s rebuttal, William Whitman, vice president of communications for McDonald’s USA, states: “We are proud of our Happy Meal, which gives our customers wholesome food and toys of the highest quality and safety. Getting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald’s.”
Just as Toyota Motor Corp. has tried to turn the corner on the publicity blow they took on their Prius and other hybrid vehicles being recalled for brake problems, the company has suffered another blow. Toyota has been forced to recall an additional 270,000 cars due to faulty engines.
The number of vehicles that have been recalled is now about 8.5 million cars. The 2010 Prius wasn’t part of the earlier recalls.
The latest Toyota recall is the Lexus, affecting seven luxury sedan models, including 17,000 luxury hybrids. Tests showed that fuel can spill during a rear-end crash.
According to Japanese daily newspaper Asahi, the latest 270,000 vehicles being recalled could cost Toyota about $227 million.
The first recall cost Toyota a record $16.4 million fine in the United States for acting to slowly to recall defective vehicles. But they have acted quicker this time around.
“It is clear that Toyota has learned a lesson from the recall disaster. The company has acted very swiftly to deal with problems,” according to Ryoichi Saito, an auto analyst from Mizuho Investors Securities Co. Ltd.
If you have been the victim of a defective product, it is best to consult with a product liability attorney. Whocanisue.com can refer you to a lawyer in your hometown.
Apple, the darling of the tech world, finds itself the target of multiple class-action lawsuits over its new iPhone 4. Two people taking legal action, Kevin McCaffrey and Linda Wrinn, cannot return their phones without incurring a restocking fee, according to the court where they filed their lawsuit.
The iPhone 4, which shipped to consumers in late June, started seeing reports that holding the phone with fingers covering the three black lines on the phone’s edge and the bottom left corner caused a dramatic drop in data reception. This has become known as the “iPhone Death Grip.”
The lawsuits point to advertisements that promise improved reception and overall service as examples of both Apple’s and AT&T’s deceptive trade practices.
“Almost immediately after the purchase of their iPhone 4 devices, both McCaffrey and Wrinn began to experience significantly reduced reception and performance when handling the phones as demonstrated in Apple’s advertisements or as a reasonable person would handle a mobile telephone while making phone calls, browsing the Internet, sending text messages, or utilizing other services provided by the iPhone 4,” according to the lawsuit.
It has been reported that Apple is prepping for a software update that will alleviate connection problems.
The iPhone 4 is out and it’s better than ever. While it is arguably the most breathtaking electronic device to ever be released to date, you may have heard of the slight problem it was built with. Apparently, there happens to be a very unfortunate reception and antenna issue that just might spawn a class-action lawsuit.
The Law firm Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff is issuing a call for disgruntled users as part of their investigations of “potential problems with the release of iPhone 4.”
In their attempt to recruit more people, the lawyers have written, “If you recently purchased the new iPhone and have experienced poor reception quality, dropped calls and weak signals, we would like to hear from you.”
As the video embedded below (and many others) display, you can’t deny that holding the phone a certain way causes a decrease in signal bars. This happens because the metal sides of the device also function as the phone’s antenna. Call reception drops dramatically if the phone is held by its sides in two places.
Here is one of the videos displaying the issue:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs has combatted the complaints by saying that “there is no reception issue,” while also cautioning iPhone 4 owners to “stay tuned.” To me, this implies that they are working on a system upgrade or some sort of “quick fix” that will remedy this problem immediately.
According to our research, the same firm went after Facebook, Zynga, MySpace, RockYou and others for advertising scams and allegedly unauthorized charges to users’ Mafia Wars and FarmVille accounts last fall.
As for us, I’m not quite sure what to make of this issue. I still plan on getting the new phone and probably putting a case over it. At the very worst, I’ll just remember to not hold the phone that way while it’s in my left hand. No harm done.
What’s your opinion? If you have a new iPhone 4, are you experiencing issues with the antenna band? Do you think this issue is worth suing over? Let us know what you think in the comments below.
A woman has sued Bacardi U.S.A. Inc., Bacardi Corp., Bacardi Bottling Corp. and Bacardi Imports accusing the alcohol maker of being responsible for her severe burns. A bottle of Bacardi 151 rum caught fire during a restaurant bartender’s pyrotechnic display.
Who knew that Bacardi could be so dangerous?
Lauren Sclafani has not won a decision in her case, she was only granted the right to pursue her grievances. She has alleged that Bacardi either knew or should have been able to foresee that its high-proof rum would be used in a variety of flammable actions.
Thomas A. Moore, Sclafan’s attorney, says that his client is permanently scarred from burns on her face and arms, and has “functional deficits” in her hands. Sclafani has also filed a lawsuit against the restaurant, Brother Jimmy’s on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Sclafani is seeking punitive damages from Bacardi, with the claim that the flammable dangers present in the rum product “outweighed its utility.”
During its attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed, Bacardi claimed that the flammability of the rum does not qualify as a design defect under New York law, and therefore it should not be held liable.
A federal jury in Bridgeport, Connecticut has awarded a woman $8 million in what is believed to be the first successful product liability lawsuit in Connecticut by an individual plaintiff against a tobacco company.
Should we expect to start seeing more cases against tobacco companies?
Barbara Izzarelli, who began smoking as a teen in the mid ’70s, continued her habit of daily heavy smoking for 20 years, when in 1996 she was diagnosed with larynx cancer. After undergoing a total laryngectomy, radiation and chemotherapy treatments, Izzarelli can no longer breathe through her mouth or nose and eats a diet that no longer includes solid foods.
“We’re disappointed in the decision in this matter,” said David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds. “We have several grounds for appeal and we are confident in our defenses going forward.”
The tobacco company plans to appeal the verdict.
The litigation against tobacco makers has been a well publicized, and controversial, legal action of the last couple decades. Lawsuits have been put forth by individuals with little success… until now.
The breakthrough success is being attributed to the recent location of documents that reveal that tobacco companies targeted minors in their marketing.
“Smokers are entitled to show they were the victim of illegal marketing,” said Izzarelli’s lead attorney, David GolubGolub. “I thought this was a case that could show that and other people would be encouraged to bring cases.”
Golub has filed two additional cases against tobacco companies.
Hulk Hogan is fuming after the popular kids cereal, Cocoa Pebbles, released a commercial that featured an imaginary wrestler with the name “Hulk Boulder.” Word has hit media outlets nationwide that Hogan is filing a lawsuit against the cereal for using a character that is so obviously based on his own legal properties.
While not many details of the suit have been revealed yet, it’s apparent that Hogan is desperate for both money and media attention ever since his divorce several months ago.
The commercial has been getting a tremendous amount of attention and views online during its brief existence. Whether that ends up being a good thing or a bad thing for Cocoa Pebbles remains to be seen. It’s going to depend solely on the case that Hogan has against them.
Watch the video below and then weigh in with your thoughts and comments? Who’s right and who’s wrong in this situation?
Agnes Mercado of Queens, New York has eaten two to three bags of Act II Lite microwave popcorn every day for 16 years (from 1991 to 2007). As a result, she has permanent lung damage, according to a lawsuit she has filed against the popcorn’s maker ConAgra Foods.
During this time, ConAgra used diacetyl for flavoring its popcorn. When it was found that workers at the food plant developed “popcorn lung,” an airway obstruction that is unresponsive to medicine, the company stopped using diacetyl.
“I’ve been eating popcorn many years, but now I wish I hadn’t. It’s made me very sick,” says Mercado. Last month, the Queens woman learned that she has a condition known as bronchiolitis obliterans.
According to the Queens Supreme Court, Mercado uses an oxygen tank and is “likely to require a lung transplant.”
In February, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration started reviewing whether or not consumers are at risk of lung disease through prolonged exposure to diacetyl.
A jury in Los Angeles has awarded 200 million dollars in punitive damages and $8.8 million in compensatory damages in an asbestos product liability case. A legal representative for the CertainTeed Corp., a building materials manufacturer, says that the judge “refused to enter the judgment” until he evaluated the legal basis for the award.
The plaintiff, Rhoda Evans, claimed that her mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibers that she breathed while washing her husband’s work clothes. Her husband, Bobby Evans, worked for Los Angeles’ water and power department for 24 years, where he cut CertainTeed asbestos cement water pipe.
The amount of the settlement can still be reduced.
“As far as I know, the largest punitive damages award ever upheld in California was $55 million,” says punitive damages expert Curt Cutting. “The fact that the trial court has asked for briefing before entering judgment is probably a pretty good indication the judge has questions about the validity of a verdict that size.”
Victims of asbestos exposure, or other negligent workplace practices, should consult with an employment attorney. They will best be able to evaluate whether or not you deserve a workers compensation settlement.
