Are there different standards for obtaining patents in foreign countries?

Foreign Patents Patent Law Intellectual Property

Are there different standards for obtaining patents in foreign countries?

Yes, and a patent attorney can assist you in understanding the differences. For example, most foreign countries (with Canada is a notable exception) have an “absolute novelty” requirement for obtaining a patent.

Read more to view related video clips.

Continue reading “Are there different standards for obtaining patents in foreign countries?”

Can assignments and licenses of copyrights be limited in terms of time, geography, or type of use?

Assignments Copyright Licenses Copyright Law Intellectual Property

Can assignments and licenses of copyrights be limited in terms of time, geography, or type of use?

Yes. If you own a copyright you can limit the time, scope, sphere, and nature of any assignments you make.

You may impose time limits (for example, “until December 31, 2009”), or territorial limits (for example, “in Canada, in the United States west of the Mississippi only and in Japan”), or media limits (such as “print only” or “electronically on the Web only”), and so forth.

If you require or accept use limitations, make sure that they are reviewed by an experienced intellectual property lawyer and very clearly defined.

Read more to view related video clips.

Continue reading “Can assignments and licenses of copyrights be limited in terms of time, geography, or type of use?”

Welding Rods Side Effects – Parkinson’s & Cancer

Welding Rod Side Effects Drug Toxic Chemicals

Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Drug Liability Attorney.

Welding Rods Side Effects – Parkinson’s & Cancer

Welding Rods contain manganese, which is released into the air in fumes and dust when the rods are heated. Exposure to manganese fumes or dust for 2 months or more can cause Parkinson’s disease, or a similar condition called Manganism. The symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are:

Tremors or trembling in the hands, arms, legs, and face

Stiffness or rigidity in arms and legs

A fixed gaze or blank face

Slow body movements

Changed gait caused by abnormal muscle tone (dystonia)

Difficulty walking and with coordination and balance

Slurred or hesitant speech

Depression

Dementia

Suffered harm from Welding Rod exposure? You may have a lawsuit. Click here, for a top rated law firm to evaluate your legal rights.

Manganism can sometimes be reversed if caught in the early stages, but can’t be cured if it progresses to later stages. Anyone experiencing the early stages of the symptoms listed above should seek medical help immediately. Other warning signs include:

Inability to perform routine tasks as quickly as usual

Fatigue

Short-term memory loss

Insomnia

Headache

Muscle cramps

Loss of appetite

Anxiety

Diminished libido or impotence

“Locura manganica” (manganese madness), characterized by aggression and an inability to control emotions

Toxic doses of manganese sometimes cause immediate symptoms, including:

Dizziness

Nausea

Vomiting

Upset stomach

Dryness or irritation of nose, throat, and eyes

Fever

Chills

Body Aches

Metallic taste

Asthma-like symptoms

Other side effects of manganese inhalation or absorption include:

Bronchial asthma

Lung fibrosis

Pneumoconiosis or “siderosis”

Lung and nasal cancer

Ulceration or perforation of the nasal septum

Respiratory difficulty

Lung cancer

Anemia

The fumes and dust produced by heating welding rods produce other chemicals that are toxic in high levels and can cause serious side effects. For example both soluble chromium compounds and insoluble nickel are known to cause cancer in humans. Chromium dust can cause skin ulcers and eye burns. Both silicon and molybdenum fumes and dust can cause irritation to the respiratory system, eyes, and skin.

If you’ve been exposed to toxic fumes and dust from welding rods, you should see a heathcare provider to be checked for possible welding rods side effects. If you or a loved one has already been injured by the toxic effects of welding rods, you might be able to recover damages. You should have your case evaluated as soon as you can. See Welding Rods Attorney and Lawyer – How to Hire for information on finding a welding rods lawyer.

Check out the following articles for more information about Welding rods, filing a Welding rods lawsuit and finding a Welding rods attorney.

For more information about welding rods, see Drug Overview: Welding Rods Side Effects and Claims

To find out more about warnings, see Welding Rods Side Effects and Risks

For more information about welding rod updates, see Welding Rods Information and Warnings

If you would like to learn more about welding rods lawsuits, see Welding Rods Lawsuits, Litigation & Lawyers

To learn more about welding rods attorneys and how to find one, see Hiring a Welding Rods Attorney and Lawyer

Suffered harm from Welding Rod exposure? You may have a lawsuit. Click here, for a top rated law firm to evaluate your legal rights.

Read more for related video clips.

Continue reading “Welding Rods Side Effects – Parkinson’s & Cancer”

Trasylol Information and Warnings

Trasylol Information Drug Toxic Chemicals

Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Drug Liability Attorney.

Trasylol Information and Warnings

Trasylol, an antifibrinolytic agent, was used during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), heart valve, and knee and hip replacement surgery to limit the loss of blood. It was on the market for 14 years, before it was removed. On November 5, 2007 the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) told Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the drug’s manufacturer, to suspend sales of the drug in the U.S. Bayer voluntarily agreed to begin removing the last stocks of the drug from the U.S. market on May 14, 2008.
The drug ban came as the result of preliminary results of a Canadian study showing that Trasylol was twice as likely to cause death as two similar drugs. The FDA suspended sales in the U.S. while Germany banned the drug and Canada suspended sales. Bayer has now removed the drug from the global market. The Canadian study was later published in the May 29, 2008 New England Journal of Medicine.
The FDA is being criticized for waiting so long to pull Trasylol from the market, since a 2006 study had already shown that Trasylol doubled the risk of kidney failure and caused other serious problems, such as heart attacks and strokes. The Trasylol study further found that two other generic drugs, aminocaproic acid and tranexamic acid, were just as effective as Trasylol, and safer, and that around 10,000 individuals were probably on dialysis as a result of Trasylol use in 2006.

Suffered harm from Trasylol? You may have a lawsuit. Click here, for a top rated law firm to evaluate your legal rights.

On February 17, 2008, CBS’s 60 Minutes did a segment on the FDA’s handling of Trasylol. It revealed that Bayer had known about another damaging study in 2006, when the FDA was considering whether to ban the drug, but Bayer withheld the information from the FDA. If you have undergone CABG, heart valve, or knee of hip replacement surgery in the past and believe you have been injured by Trasylol, you may be entitled to recover damages for your injury.

Check out the following articles for more information about Trasylol, filing a Trasylol lawsuit and finding a Trasylol attorney.

Trasylol: Overview

Trasylol Side Effects

Trasylol: FDA Warning

Trasylol Lawsuits and Litigation

Trasylol Attorneys: How to Find and Hire

Suffered harm from Trasylol? You may have a lawsuit. Click here, for a top rated law firm to evaluate your legal rights.

Read more for related video clips.

Continue reading “Trasylol Information and Warnings”

What are some of the main deal points in a music publisher’s agreement?

Points Music Publishing Agreement Music Law Intellectual Property

What are some of the main deal points in a music publisher’s agreement?

Most of the various types of music publishing contracts contain similar basic paragraphs in common cornering the advance, royalty payments, copyright ownership, and warranties and representations. These are the key issues that should be addressed and clarified.

(1) Term: The “term” is the length of the agreement. The duration can be based on calendar (“contract years”) years or on albums (“LP’s”). For example, the contract year term in a staff writer deal is usually one year with a certain number of options. Another frequently encountered contract year term would be the longer of 12 months or until a specified number of songs have been delivered. An LP-based term is based on the albums written by the composer, not on years. While recording agreements with major labels usually range from 5-8 years, co-publishing agreements are shorter, only about 3 to 4 years in duration.

(2) Territory: While it may be possible for some established writers to limit the publisher’s rights to certain territories by way of an “admin deal,” a “worldwide” territory is common for single-song contracts and “co-pub” deals. This allows the publisher to maximize its earnings on your songs by either adding it to the songs already in their subpublishing agreement, or by assigning the songs to various subpublishers around the world.

(3) Scope & Compositions: A co-pub deal can be for a single composition, an album, or an entire catalogue. The deal can include past, present and future songs. The “scope” clause specifies which songs are part of the publishing deal by expressly defining “composition” in a certain manner. It explicitly identifies in the body of the agreement which compositions will be included and excluded. If you are the writer, it is more beneficial to try to exclude previously released songs and limit the scope to songs written during the term of the publishing agreement. If existing songs are required, try to get a higher advance. This compositions clause may also determine if the writer has the right to collaborate in writing the songs and, if so, how the collaborative works are to be co-owned/co-administered.

(4) Advances: An “advance” is a sum of money paid by the publisher to the song writer for conveying to the publisher copyrights to a song or a collection of agreed songs. The royalty advance is frequently the most important issue to the writer. The only reason a writer would ever want to convey his/her copyrights in songs would be in return for money and to share in the future royalties from the songs. Therefore, if a publisher ever asks you for money for your own songs, it is not a genuine or legitimate publisher. A publisher should always offer you money to own or administrate any part of your songs, unless it is small indie publisher with no money. The amount of the advance is based on the degree to which the publisher believes that it can earn royalty income off your songs through successful exploitation. If the publisher believes your songs are going to be big hits, it may offer a lot of money. If not, the advance will be commensurately less. Market forces also often drive up the level of advances.

The advance is usually “nonrefundable and recoupable.” Advances are “nonreturnable” because if the writer does not earn any royalties, the writer need not pay the advance back. “Recoupable” means if the writer’s songs generates sufficient royalties to pay back the advance, the publisher gets to “recoup” its advance. Once the writer is “recouped”, all additional income collected is split between the writer and the publisher in accordance with the agreed share. The only song writer royalty a publisher cannot recoup is income form public performances.

Advances may be contingent or automatic. For example, an advance may be based immediately upon signing the publishing agreement (“on execution”). Alteratively, an advance may be paid when a single song or album reaches certain sales or chart positions.

An advance is payable usually as a flat sum, e.g. $25,000. Or, it can be paid out as a per centage (%) of earnings on previous albums, with minimums and maximums (“min-max’s”).

(5) Delivery: In return for the royalty advance , the song writer must “deliver” a certain amount of musical compositions during the term. Where substantial advances are involved and the number of compositions is specified in the term, a music publisher may often insist that the compositions be released on a record in the US by a “major” record label.

(6) Ownership: The ownership of the copyright is perhaps one of the most important terms in a publishing deal. Under a single song agreement or ESWA deal, the publisher typically acquires 100% copyright ownership, worldwide, for life. Under a typical co-pub deal, the writer becomes a “co-publisher” with the music publisher on a 50/50 split, but the publisher has exclusive administration of the songs throughout the world. No ownership rights are granted in either admin, collection, or subpublishing agreements.

(7) Royalty Splits: The division of royalty income is just as important as ownership of the copyrights. In a single song deal, the royalties are usually split 50/50 between the writer and publisher, except for print income for which the writer usually receives 5¢ to 10¢ per copy sold. Similarly, under a typical “copublishing deal, there is usually a 50/50 split, which becomes a “75/25 deal.” Under this deal, the co-publisher-writer gets 100% of the writers share of income, and 50% of the publisher’s share, or 75% of all income. If an admin or collection deal is possible, the royalty splits are usually 85% to the writer, 15% to the administrator. Sometimes, it is possible to negotiate a more favorable split in a co-pub or an admin deal once the writer has been recouped, or reaches certain pre-determined levels of income and success.

The calculations of your royalty splits will also be dependant on whether your royalties are calculated on an “at source” or “receipts” basis. As a song writer, always try to get an “at source” deal to maximize your income.

Print royalties are usually paid on the basis of “net paid sales”, which means on gross shipments, less returns, for which the publisher received payment.

And, remember, no payment of royalties is paid to either the publisher or the writer for promotion copies of your songs.

(8) Administration: In exchange for giving you an advance against future royalties, the music publisher will be conveyed the writer’s “administrative rights.” This clause grants the music publisher the right to control and exploit your composition. Publishers do this by granting mechanical licenses, synchronization licenses, and print rights. Additional provisions allow the publisher to collect the money from the rights that are granted to third parties. There is usually an “administration” fee charged by the administrator/publisher. Frequently, the admin fee is 10% to 25%. This fee is usually deducted off the top of either the gross receipts from the compositions or from the gross publisher’s share of income.

(9) Costs: The deductions from gross royalty receipts will often be the subject of negotiations. Obviously, as the writer you will want the music publishers to absorb as many fees as possible, For example, ask your publisher to waive fees charged to the publisher by Harry Fox Agency or CMRRA. If they do not agree to this, try to avoid the middle-man charge by having the music publisher agree to license directly to affiliated record companies, or perhaps to only the “majors.” Other expenses that are negotiated are the copyright registration fees and the costs of lead sheets and demos, etc.

(10) Restrictions:There are a number of creative rights that a writer may choose not to convey to the publisher, and for which the writer may want to retain prior approval. Sometimes a writer can place limitations on the right to use his or her name and likeness (right of publicity). For example, a writer may insist that his songs not be used commercially in conjunction with tobacco or alcohol companies, feminine hygiene products, etc. If this restriction is allowed, the publisher will usually insist the writer must regularly supply the publisher with approved photographs and bios, and will want to use any materials approved or deemed approved for use by the writer’s record company. Or, a writer may not want any translations, adaptations or arrangements of the songs without prior approval. Often a writer who is also a recording artist may want a clause not allowing the publisher to issue “first-use” mechanical licenses with out the writer’s approval. This restriction is usually limited for periods of 6- 9 months, and applies only where the writer contemplates recording the song. Other restrictions could include limiting the publisher from commercially exploiting any demo recording, or from issuing mechanical licenses “below rate.” Another provision would be to preclude any synchronization licenses without approval, or no use of the title of a song on any film/TV/stage production without writer consent. A writer can sometimes also limit the publisher’s right to settle copyright infringement or other lawsuits against the writer without the writer’s consent. If you have sufficient clout, you may even restrict your “grand rights” and “merch rights”, so that a publisher cannot (without your permission) use your songs in a theatrical dramatization, or cannot license you songs on any merchandise.

(11) Reversion: Under US Copyright laws, the length of time a music publisher is allowed to retain ownership of and/or administrative rights to the post-1978 copyrights acquired during the duration of the publishing agreement is thirty-five years. At the end of the 35-year term, the copyrights “revert” back to the writer. Thus, the term, “reversion.” The provision that specifies the writer’s right to regain the copyrights is called a “reversion clause.” Sometimes a writer can negotiate a reversion clause that allows the copyright to revert sooner than under normal circumstances.

A reversion clause may be negotiated where the publisher fails to pay the royalties properly or on a timely basis. In the past few years, a growing trend has emerged with some music publishers in co-pub deals to agree to return copyrights to some leveraged writers after 25, 15 , or even 5 years. Alternatively, reversion may occur the later of “term plus x amount of years.” If you cannot get a reversion clause based on years, try to get one based on your performance.

(12) Costs of Litigation:As in many recording agreements, there are often “Warranties,” “Representations” and “Indemnification” clauses in publishing agreements. Under these provisions, the writer promises that all the songs on your albums are original and agrees to reimburse the publisher in case they are found not to be originals. Similar “warranties” and “indemnification” clauses exist in the recording agreements between the artist and the record company. At a minimum, try to avoid or limit the indemnification clause, under which a writer agrees that if the music publisher is sued for copyright infringement, the writer agrees to reimburse them for all their court costs, legal expenses and attorneys fees. Instead, try to get provisions that obligates the publisher to bring all necessary litigation in order to collect your monies and/or to prevent or cure infringements. Ask the publisher to advance and absorb all costs of litigation against third parties.

(13) Audit:Typically, publishers send royalty payments semi-annually (twice a year) at six-month intervals, usually within 45 days after the end of each six-month period. This means if the music publisher pays based on a calendar year, the writer should be paid in about mid-August and mid-February. To protect the writer, there should be an audit clause which allows the writer (or his/her financial representatives, such as a CPA, accountant, and/or lawyer) to examine and inspect the music publisher’s royalty statements and books at certain times to make sure royalty payments are accurate. Insist on one. There are usually restrictions imposed in audits clauses as to the times and frequency of audits. Try to get a longer “contractual statute of limitations” on audits and law suits, instead of the short ones usually proposed. Ask for a right to inspect the statements, books, and records 2-4 times per year. Ask for the right to audit licensees directly. In case an underpayment of royalties is found after an audit, try to include a provision that ensures your audit costs will be reimbursed, in whole or in part.

Whenever possible, a qualified music lawyer should be consulted before any music agreement is signed. With the right counsel and bargaining power, you should be able to land better deals.

(Reprinted with permission from Ruben Salazar, Esq. )

Read more to view related video clips.

Continue reading “What are some of the main deal points in a music publisher’s agreement?”

Bayer Temporarily Stops Sale of Heart Surgery Drug Trasylol

Bayer Temporarily Stop Sale Of Trasylol Drug Toxic Chemicals

Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Drug Liability Attorney.

Bayer Temporarily Stops Sale of Heart Surgery Drug Trasylol

Bayer Pharmaceuticals announced on November 5, 2007 that they will no longer sell their drug Trasylol, which is used to control bleeding during heart bypass surgery. Trasylol, also known as aprotinin, has been linked to several deaths and has been on the medical radar screen of many doctors and patients in the past few years.
Nearly five million patients have taken the drug since it was approved by the FDA 14 years ago and over 100,000 patients in the U.S. took the drug last year. Bayer estimates that Trasylol sales in the United States were over $90 million from January to September 2007 alone.
Germany, Canada, and the U.S. urged Bayer to stop sales
According to reports, regulators in the United States, Canada, and Germany have been after the company to stop selling Trasylol until further studies could be done to better determine the drug’s potential for harm. After a recent Canadian study revealed that patients taking Trasylol were more likely to die within 30 days after their heart procedure, Bayer reacted and announced that it would stop selling the product.
Trasylol’s turbulent past
Several previous studies had found that Trasylol may increase the risk of kidney damage, heart failure, heart attacks, and strokes. Although Bayer and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) knew about these studies nearly two years ago, the FDA decided not to pull the product off the shelves. Instead, it added warning labels and restricted its use. However, the FDA later discovered that Bayer failed to apprise them about other studies that showed an increase in death among patients using the drug and ordered further investigation.

Read more for related video clips.

Continue reading “Bayer Temporarily Stops Sale of Heart Surgery Drug Trasylol”

Raptiva Linked to Fatal Brain Infection

Raptiva Linked To Brain Infection Drug Toxic Chemicals

Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Drug Liability Attorney.

Raptiva Linked to Fatal Brain Infection

The California-based drug firm Genentech has announced a voluntary, phased withdrawal from the market of its psoriasis drug Raptiva, which has been linked to a rare but usually fatal brain infection.
Genentech’s action
As of last October, three cases of the disorder, progressive multfocal leukoencephalophathy (PML) had been reported to the Food and Drug Administration in patients taking Raptiva, two of them fatal. A fourth patient with possible PML also died. All of the patients, ages 47-73 years had been taking the drug for at least three years.
“Our decision to remove Raptiva from the market reflects Genentech’s commitment to patient safety,” Hal Barron, MD, the firm’s Senior Vice President for Development and Chief Medical Officer, said in a statement. “Although we believe that many psoriasis patients are benefiting from Raptiva, the balance between benefit and risk in the psoriasis population for which Raptiva was approved has significantly changed.”
The company estimates that 2,000 patients in the US currently taken the drug and that 46,000 patients worldwide have taken the drug.
In a letter to Raptiva patients, Dr. Barron advised them not to stop taking Raptiva without first talking to a physician because sudden withdrawal could have serious side effects, such as worsening of the psoriasis leading to hospitalization.
“There is no way to know ahead of time who will get PML,” he wrote. “There is no treatment or cure for PML. People who do live with PML are severely disabled.”
To give physicians time to withdraw patients from the drug and change treatment, pharmacies will be able to refill prescriptions until June 8, 2009, however, no new prescriptions will be filled.
Background
The FDA approved Raptiva for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2003. No cases of PML were seen in the 2,764 patients treated with Raptiva in the clinical trails that led to the approval of the drug. Of those patients, 2400 had been treated for two months, 904 for six months, and 218 for one year or longer.
Last fall the Food and Drug Administration ordered Genentech to change the Raptiva label to highlight in a boxed warning the risks of life-threatening infections, including PML. A Public Health Advisory alerting to the risk of PML, which is a rare, progressive neurological disease caused by a virus that affects the central nervous system, followed the action in February.
Regulators in Europe, Canada, and Malaysia have recommended that the drug be withdrawn from the market.
Potential for lawsuits
Geentech’s withdrawal of Raptiva is expected to lead to a flood of lawsuits. A recent Supreme Court ruling, Wyeth V. Levine, holding that a patient injured by a drug can sue the maker even though the Food and Drug Administration oversees warnings on drug labels about possible side effects opens the door for plaintiff suits.
If you or any member of your family uses Raptiva, consult your physician first, and then call an attorney immediately.

Read more for related video clips.

Continue reading “Raptiva Linked to Fatal Brain Infection”

What’s the hub-bub about domain names all about?

Internet Domain Names Computer Law Intellectual Property

What’s the hub-bub about domain names all about?

The URL, that catchy domain name people can actually read, is a stand-in for the electronic digital address used by the computers. Where the rule used to be (back in the golden age of 1994) “first come, first serve”, this only lasted until people got greedily creative and tried claim-jumping, like the man who registered the name “www.mcdonalds.com” although he had no connection with the Kroc franchise. Then those responsible for registering domain names had to attend to a fundamental legal principle: people have no right to trade on other people’s advertising or to try to fool the public. Nowadays, InterNIC (the organization which administers the registration of domain names) and other domain name “sources” require applicants to warrant that he/she/it has the right to use the requested domain name and that their use does not interfere with or infringe on third parties’ rights. And, not being a court, if a clash arises InterNIC “freezes” a domain name for up to a year, and requires the domain name holder to produce proof of ownership of a national (US or foreign) trade- or service-mark registration AND requires indemnification from liability for registration (including a bond to cover damages which may be sought). This gives the feuding parties time to get to a court and fight it out. The real problem comes when the same name, or confusingly similar ones, can be legitimately claimed by multiple parties in different commercial channels.

Read more to view related video clips.

Continue reading “What’s the hub-bub about domain names all about?”

What is source code escrow? What is a source code escrow agreement?

Source Code Escrow Agreement Computer Law Intellectual Property

What is source code escrow? What is a source code escrow agreement?

Software escrow means deposit of the source code of the software into an account held by a third party escrow agent. Escrow is typically requested by a party licensing software (the “licensee”), to ensure maintenance of the software. The software source code is released to the licensee if the licensor files for bankruptcy or otherwise fails to maintain and update the software as promised in the software license agreement.

What are object code and source code? Object code is the software’s programming code translated into machine-readable form, zeros and ones, which humans cannot understand and when compiled forms source code. The form of the code which humans write and understand is called source code.

A Source Code Escrow Agreement is an agreement between the software owner, the party receiving the license and the escrow agent. As it is a three-way agreement, negotiations can some times be difficult.

Click for an article covering more information on the clauses and these contracts in detail as well as forms to cover these situations.

Read more to view related video clips.

Continue reading “What is source code escrow? What is a source code escrow agreement?”

Jury Hits Wyeth with $99 Million in Punitive Damages

Prempro Punitive Damages Drug Toxic Chemicals

Free Case Evaluation From An Experienced Drug Liability Attorney.

Jury Hits Wyeth with $99 Million in Punitive Damages

The Nevada jury that found Wyeth Pharmaceuticals liable for $134.5 million to three women who developed breast cancer after taking drugs manufactured by the company, has now hit Wyeth with a $99 million punitive damages award.View All Prempro Articles

The original case
The Nevada lawsuit was brought by three women who developed breast cancer after taking Wyeth’s hormone replacement drugs and Premarin and Prempro. The women alleged that the pharmaceutical giant did not provide adequate warnings and the three developed breast cancer as a result.
While the jury originally awarded the women $134.5 million in damages, that amount was later reduced by approximately $99 million as the jury mistakenly thought that punitive damages were included in the original amount. To show Wyeth that they should pay punitive damages (which are meant to ‘punish’), the jury simply awarded punitive damages in almost the same amount that had been reduced.
Premarin & Prempro
Premarin, which is an estrogen replacement drug, and Prempro, which is a combination of estrogen and progestin, were both found to be defective products by the Nevada jury, who also found Wyeth negligent in producing, marketing and selling these drugs.
In addition to breast cancer, both drugs have been associated with other types of cancer in women. Wyeth continues to fight over 5,000 similar lawsuits nationwide.
If you or a love one has been injured by taking Prempro or Premarin, contact an attorney to evaluate your case.
Suffered harm from Prempro? You may have a lawsuit. Click here, for a top rated law firm to evaluate your legal rights.

Read more for related video clips.

Continue reading “Jury Hits Wyeth with $99 Million in Punitive Damages”