![]() ![]() Feb. 8, 2022
Good morning! Pfizer won’t be allowed to intervene, just yet at least, in a lawsuit from doctors seeking data the FDA relied on to license the company’s COVID-19 vaccine. Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling said Alabama can use an electoral map that was faulted for racial bias, and the U.S. Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog is objecting to the Boy Scouts of America’s proposed reorganization plan. ICYMI, the D.C. Circuit has a thing about acronyms. It’s Tuesday, and we’re in the zone. Let’s go!
Filling in today for Diana Novak Jones is our colleague Karen Sloan, who reports on law firms, law schools, and the business of law. Were you forwarded this email? Subscribe here.
Judge delays ruling on Pfizer’s bid to jump into FDA vaccine records case REUTERS/Dado Ruvic A Texas federal judge will not immediately rule on whether to allow Pfizer Inc to intervene in a federal public records lawsuit that seeks information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its licensing of the pharmaceutical company’s COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s lawyers at DLA Piper last month sought to jump into the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to protect against the public disclosure of any confidential business information, including trade secrets.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman said in a new order he will defer ruling on Pfizer’s motion “until a conflict is imminent or has, in fact, manifested.” He weighed arguments at a hearing last month from Pfizer and the plaintiffs, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, who questioned the timing of the company's move to get involved in the case.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys at Siri & Glimstad argued Pfizer did not have “any need now to intervene to protect any trade secrets because plaintiff has not sought to challenge any redactions.” The plaintiffs argued Pfizer still could work with the FDA to help the agency publicly release records that are responsive to the lawsuit.
Hello, Daily Docket readers! We're exploring ways to give you more of the legal news you want, and we'd like your input. Please take a minute to fill out this survey to tell us what we’re doing right, and what you think should change. Thank you!
Industry buzz
Number of the day: REUTERS/Amir Cohen That’s the settlement amount between Teva Pharmaceutical and Texas, as the drugmaker resolves claims that it fueled an opioid epidemic in the state by improperly marketing addictive pain medications. Teva agreed to pay $150 million over 15 years and provide $75 million worth of generic Narcan, a medication used to counter the effects of opioid overdoses. The deal is the largest Teva has struck in the more than 3,500 lawsuits it faces seeking to hold it and other drug companies responsible for an opioid abuse epidemic, Nate Raymond writes. Read more about the deal.
Columnist spotlight: Ripple lawyers' advice on digital tokens set for unsealing in key SEC case A decade ago, outside lawyers for the blockchain company Ripple Labs wrote two memos on legal issues arising from the company’s plans to issue digital tokens. When the SEC sued Ripple and two execs in December 2020 for the unregistered sale of those tokens, it said those memos provided Ripple knew it was on thin ice. Ripple has countered that its lawyers said the tokens were not securities. The memos themselves have been sealed, and the filings that mention them in the SEC’s closely watched case have been redacted. But that’s about to change. Alison Frankel explains why a new unsealing order is important for crypto regulation. Check out other recent pieces from all our columnists: Alison Frankel, Jenna Greene and Hassan Kanu.
"Dismantling the mandatory Texas State Bar after its over eight decades of service to the people of Texas would thus be a wrenching change that would jeopardize the smooth functioning of Texas’s legal system."
—Vinson & Elkins senior partner Thomas Leatherbury, in a new brief for the Texas bar asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decline to take up a First Amendment challenge to mandatory bar dues. Lawyers in Texas and Oklahoma, in a separate case, have asked the justices to reconsider the high court’s 1990 decision upholding requirements that lawyers pay dues to state bar associations, saying compulsory dues improperly subsidize political speech. Leatherbury told the court in the Texas case: “Over the past two years, this court has rejected four similar requests for it to revisit its integrated-bar precedents. The court should do the same here.”
Coming up today
In the courts
Industry moves
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office went almost fully remote at the start of the pandemic and now takes about seven months to conduct initial examinations of new trademark applications, writes Ian Block of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg. That’s about four months longer than it took before the pandemic. Read more about what the additional time means for trademark applicants and brand owners.
Want more legal news?
Contact and follow us
Diana Novak Jones diana.jones2@thomsonreuters.com
Mike Scarcella mike.scarcella@thomsonreuters.com
Thanks for reading The Daily Docket. Invite friends to subscribe here.
Contact us with feedback.
Copyright © 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123
Want to change how you receive these emails? |