Browsing by Author "Morben, Bryan"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Fight Against Oppression in the Digital Age: Restructuring Minnesota’s Cyberbullying Law to Get with the Battle
    (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Morben, Bryan
    This Note will explore some of the difficulties in dealing with cyberbullying, the importance of finding a better solution, and how Minnesota’s current cyberbullying law can be drastically improved by analyzing pending legislation. Minnesota amended its bullying statute back in 2007 to include “electronic forms” of bullying in an attempt to deal with the increasing cyberbullying problem. This attempt has done little, except cause more confusion for local schools that are supposed to adopt their own policies. The U.S. Department of Education studied the bullying statutes of every state that had one in 2011. The Department introduced eleven key components that it found were part of most state legislation and that experts agreed were important to effective laws against bullying and cyberbullying. The latest bill to go through the Minnesota Legislature, H.F. 826, would completely reconstruct the Minnesota bullying statute and would provide much more guidance and instruction to local schools that want to create a safer learning environment for all. The author hopes this Note creates more awareness of the need for an updated cyberbullying law in Minnesota and helps raise the support needed to effect this change.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Foreword: The Future of Reverse Payments in the Wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
    (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 2014-02-20) Marsili, Caroline; Palmen, Brandon; Desai, Sarvesh; Connell, Ryan; Punia, Savir; Ferrell, Elliot; Kidd, George; Maloney, Eric; Nomura, Jennifer; Lu, Ude; Suresh, Maya; DeRuyter, Katelyn; Parker, Nihal; Morben, Bryan
    Reverse payment patent litigation settlements, wherein the payments flow from plaintiff brand name drug companies to defendant generic competitors, often including agreements that the generic companies will delay market entry, have evaded consistent legal treatment and divided courts for over a decade. In December 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted the Federal Trade Commission’s petition for writ of certiorari to review FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. In Watson, the Eleventh Circuit found that, absent sham litigation or fraud, reverse payment settlements are legal under antitrust law as long as the settlement agreement falls within the exclusionary scope of the patent. The Watson decision was followed mere months later by the Third Circuit’s In re K-DUR decision, concluding that reverse-payment settlements should be deemed presumptively unlawful under a quick-look rule of reason approach. Because “different courts have reached different conclusions” regarding the legality of reverse-payment settlements, the Supreme Court endeavored to resolve the circuit split in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. On June 17, 2013, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit, holding that governments and private plaintiffs have a cause of action under the antitrust laws against brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies engaging in reverse payment settlements. The Court directed lower courts reviewing such claims to apply a full rule of reason analysis to drug companies’ potentially anticompetitive conduct. In the spring of 2013, in anticipation of the Court’s decision, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology invited scholars and practitioners who have analyzed and developed the jurisprudence of reverse payment settlements to respond to FTC v. Actavis, Inc. The following eleven response pieces digest the opinion, critique both Justice Breyer’s majority opinion and Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent, and provide direction for courts and practitioners in navigating the new legal landscape of reverse-payment settlements in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.