Jason M. Reefer and Matthew R. Wendler will present for the Webinar: Are Plaintiffs Allegedly Injured by Generic Drugs Down and Out on July 8, 2014. The webinar will discuss perspectives and debate from Brand-Name and Generic Manufacturers in the Post-Mensing World. To join the webinar, click here.
Webinar materials can be accessed here. Read More
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Gaetan J. Alfano, a partner in the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, spoke on behalf of the Philadelphia Bar Association at the United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Naturalization Ceremony on July 1st, 2014.
The Naturalization Ceremony took place in observance of Freedom Week. 65 citizens from 34 different countries were present.
Mr. Alfano is the Vice Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. Read More
Jeanette H. Ho will present to interns at the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Section 1983 litigation on June 30, 2014. Read More
PITTSBURGH, PA – Janet K. Meub of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP will present at a CLE seminar sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on June 30, 2014 in Pittsburgh, PA.
Ms. Meub will present on “Trying a Case in State Court from Start to Finish.” The seminar will cover initial court filings, the discovery process, settlement negotiation, the pre-trial process, voire dire and jury selection, trial, and post-trial issues.
Ms. Meub has extensive trial experience defending medical, psychiatric, legal, and chiropractic malpractice claims in Ohio and Pennsylvania in both state and federal courts. Ms. Meub’s jury trial experience includes recent defense verdicts for an electrophysiologist in Allegheny County, a hospital in Somerset County, and a hospital in Beaver County. Additionally, she has represented nursing homes, hospitals, licensed professional counselors, and physician practice groups. Ms. Meub was named a “Rising Star” in the field of medical malpractice by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2010 and 2011. Read More
Articles in This Issue:
1. Should Companies in the Construction Industry Consider Obtaining Insurance Coverage for Cybercrime
2. Crossing the Panhandle: Risk Shifting and Anti-Indemnity Legislation in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio
3. Outside Counsel Becomes a Construction Client – New Perspective
4. Decreased Government Construction Funding Leads to Increased Investigations into DBE Fraud
5. Contractors Beware of Potential Pitfalls Under the Federal False Claims Act
6. Construction Labor Crunch and The Impact of Immigrant Workers
7. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance in the Construction Industry
Related Information:
summer_edition_of_the_construction_legal_edge.pdf Read More
The Supreme Court is reviewing more patent cases in this term than in the entire decade of the 1990’s. This activity has most recently resulted in two rulings that will shape patent litigation for years to come. In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the standard that had been applied for years by the Federal Circuit as to whether a patent is definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The Federal Circuit’s standard was that a patent lacked “definiteness” if it was “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court opined that the prior standard lacked precision because such terminology “can breed lower court confusion” and “leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass,” however, noting the “delicate balance” between requiring definiteness and accounting for the inherent limitations of language, “recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” The Supreme Court stated that the proper assessment of definiteness requires, “that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court redefined liability for “inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 217(b) when no one has directly infringed a patent under § 271(a) or any other statutory provision.” The Supreme Court definitively stated that “liability for inducement must be predicated on direct infringement.” The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and remanded the case, instructing that the “Federal Circuit will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question if it chooses.” The Supreme Court held that if “performance of all of the claimed steps cannot be attributed to a single person,” direct infringement has not occurred, and therefore, inducing infringement cannot be found. Read More
Michael A. Morse will present “Anatomy of a False Claims Act Investigation,” at the Florida Hospital Association on June 18, 2014 in Daytona Beach, FL. Read More
PHILADELPHIA, PA- Christopher A. Iacono, a senior associate in the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, presented at the 23rd Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on June 12, 2014 in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Mr. Iacono moderated the panel entitled, “Firearms Offenses.” The panel discussed substantive firearms offenses, the Armed Career Criminal Act, and issues that affect the guideline calculation under the Firearms Guideline. They also reviewed departures, variances, and the deconstruction of 2K2.1. Last, the panel discussed topics surrounding mental health and firearms.
Mr. Iacono focuses his litigation practice on white collar criminal defense, health care litigation, complex commercial litigation, SEC enforcement action defense and professional licensing litigation. He has been selected as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer for 2014 as well as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 in the area of White Collar Criminal Defense. Mr. Iacono received his B.A. from Ursinus College and his J.D. from Widener University School of Law, magna cum laude. Read More
