Robinson+Cole’s Post

Navigating regulatory appeals can be challenging, and understanding who holds the burden of proof is essential for a successful outcome. In our latest blog, we delve into the key principles and recent case law to provide clarity on this crucial aspect of the appeal process. Read more here: 

The Court Of Justice Of The European Union's Desicion On The General Data Protection Regulation And Unfair Commercial Practice Has Been Published #data #theeuropeanonion #protection #unfaircommercialpractices #adaletdivanı #kişiselveri #legal #law #bulletin #compliance #advocacy #legalnews #zumbullaw https://lnkd.in/dk6XpqXq

If someone had made allegations against you, how would you wish them to deal with you in any proposed disciplinary proceedings? Would you expect to be dealt with fairly? Obviously, decisions made by relevant committees have dramatic and significant affect on the lives of individuals. Decisions can affect the future and financial livelihood of individuals. It is for these reasons, that the health professions generally are seeing an increase in the threat of litigation against their decisions on matters of training and discipline. Read the full alert here: https://lnkd.in/gdVyUDa8 #naturaljustice #healthlaw

Attending the conference organised by The European Association of Health Law is always such a great experience. This year I have had a chance to present a topic: „Should age determine the possibility of becoming a parent?” during the workshop for young scholars. It was an amazing opportunity to see old colleagues and meet many new ones. See you next time! 😊 #HealthLaw #FundamentalRights #EAHL

Third Circuit Holds that the Public Disclosure Bar Precludes Qui Tam Actions Based on Information Available on Publicly Accessible Databases https://bit.ly/3VMPBdE #Litigation #Health #Federal

Navigating regulatory appeals can be challenging, and understanding who holds the burden of proof is essential for a successful outcome. In our latest blog, we delve into the key principles and recent case law to provide clarity on this crucial aspect of the appeal process. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/emGmwxkV

This month, AHLA and LexisNexis is having a publication sale. Save 15% on essential health law resources through December 31. Browse new releases, state law surveys, and trusted references. Use code AHLADEC24 at checkout: https://lnkd.in/ergums_P #LegalResources #AHLA

Erica Erman discusses changes and helpful practice pointers for the finalized revisions to 42 CFR Part 2 in the Health Law blog, “2024 Revisions to Part 2: Key Changes, Impact, and Compliance Tips.” Learn more: https://bit.ly/3Ax7kOE #healthlaw #behavioralhealth

Lathrop GPM is excited to share our annual Health Law Seminar will be held on July 24 in Minneapolis at the McNamara Alumni Center’s University Hall. The seminar will feature regulatory updates, an in-house counsel panel on trending topics and emerging issues and a discussion on how AI is impacting health care. Learn more and register for the seminar here: https://bit.ly/4bWCNrm #HealthLaw #CLE

The second article in our series looking at emerging themes in #patent #validity case law at the #UPC - next up... claim interpretation! In our article we look at a number of the cases touching on this topic, but in my view the most pressing unanswered questions is whether the prosecution case history can be used to interpret the claims. I.e. will we have file-wrapper estoppel at the UPC? One of the earliest notable principles established by the Court of Appeal was that the claims should always be interpreted in light of the description and drawings (for the purpose of both infringement and validity), citing Article 69 EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation. The Court of Appeal has not, however, settled the question of whether or not the prosecution history can be used, and there seems to already be a divergence of approach to the issue. In SES v Hanshow, the Munich LD was happy to dive into the prosecution history (and although the case was subject to an appeal, the Court of Appeal decided that it did not need to indicate whether or not this is an acceptable approach to construction). By contrast, in a number of its decisions, the Düsseldorf LD has refused to consider arguments based on prosecution history or the prior art on the basis that Article 69 EPC mentions only the use of the description and drawings to interpret the claims (implying that it is therefore fundamentally inadmissible to use any other sources in construing the claims). Can we anticipate a Munich/Düsseldorf showdown on the issue? It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal says if and when it has to decide on the admissibility of prosecution history to interpret the claims. For all this, and more, read on in our article....