Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
First Vioxx Ruling What Does It Mean for Merck?
Merck & Co., founded in 1891, has a slogan ' what it calls its “guiding philosophy.” That philosophy is, “patients first.” In the first of many Vioxx trials expected to be litigated in state and federal courts across the country, the jury wasn't buying it. On Aug. 19, after a month-long trial, ten out of 12 jurors ' the number needed to return a verdict of guilty ' found Merck liable to the plaintiffs, survivors of a man who took Vioxx for pain relief. The damages award was staggering: $24.5 million in economic losses and compensation for mental anguish and $229 million in punitive damages.
One of Company's Leading Products May Be Its Undoing
Vioxx, the trade name of the generic drug rofecoxib, gained FDA approval in May 1999 for the treatment of osteoarthritis, menstrual pain and the management of acute pain in adults. The original safety database included approximately 5000 patients on Vioxx and did not, according to the FDA, show an increased risk of heart attack or stroke. www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/vioxx/vioxxQA.htm. Merck later conducted a study it called VIGOR (VIOXX GI Outcomes Research), which was primarily designed to look at the effects of Vioxx on side effects such as stomach ulcers and bleeding. The results of that study, submitted to the FDA in June 2000, did indeed show that patients taking Vioxx had fewer stomach ulcers and bleeding than patients taking naproxen, another NSAID. It also turned up another, less fortuitous piece of news for Merck: Participants on Vioxx experienced a greater number of heart attacks than those not taking that medication.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?