Litigation Representative Cases and Matters

• A unanimous victory for the Alternate Dispute Resolution Practice Area.  After five days of hearings, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously found in favor of MOVA Laboratories, Inc. in an arbitration proceeding conducted under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration followed an unsuccessful mediation attempt to solve a breach of contract claim made by BIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. against MOVA for the latter's alleged failure to continue developing a patented ibuprofen solution. MOVA decided to halt its development efforts, as well as the Food and Drug Administration approval process, after it discovered that a third party had title over the ibuprofen solution patents that BIA purportedly had licensed to MOVA. Attorneys from the firm's Alternate Dispute Resolution Practice Area successfully defended MOVA when they showed that the License Agreement was null and void and, therefore, MOVA did not breach any contractual obligation when it discontinued the ibuprofen project. 
   
• Universal Health Services, Inc. Prevails Against Multimillion Dollar Lawsuits.  Plaintiffs - fifteen doctors who practice and/or used to have medical privileges at San Francisco Hospital, filed two separate, but almost identical, actions before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, seeking damages for fifteen million dollars and eighteen million dollars, respectively They alleged that defendants, Universal Health Services, Inc., UHS of Puerto Rico Inc. and J.L. Holdings, Inc., and their officers and/or directors, had breached a purported medical staff contract giving plaintiffs the right to hold privileges at the institution. The breach had allegedly occurred when defendants decided to close the hospital's Internal Medicine Department. Plaintiffs also claimed, in the federal action, that Universal Health Services, Inc. had violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by misinforming its stockholders about the outcome of an administrative complaint filed by plaintiffs before the Puerto Rico Department of Health challenging the closure of the Internal Medicine Department. After extensive discovery, the Litigation Practice Group was successful in having all claims in the federal complaint summarily dismissed through a lengthy opinion and order that tore down all of plaintiffs' arguments. The dismissal, in turn, led plaintiffs to settle the state court action under terms extremely favorable to defendants.
  
• Intellectual Property team nabs a victory in Nopalina trademark suit. On July 9, 2007 our Intellectual Property team successfully argued in favor of the dismissal of a petition for injunctive relief filed by Michael Poma Ramírez before the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico against Salud Natural Entrepeneurs, Inc. makers and distributors of the product Nopalina in the United States and Puerto Rico. Based on the first to file rule, the Superior Court summarily dismissed the petition, which had been filed in the state court two days after Héctor P. Oliva and Salud Natural Entrepeneurs, Inc. had filed a federal complaint against Poma for breach of trademark rights, among other claims. A few days thereafter, and after two full days of hearings, a Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico agreed with Salud Natural's arguments and issued a Report and Recommendation enjoining Poma from selling his product in Puerto Rico and from otherwise infringing Salud Natural's Nopalina trademark.
  
• First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of RICO Purported Class Action Suit. Our Litigation Practice Group prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in defending the summary dismissal of a purported class action suit filed under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by providers of medical products and services against, among others, client MC-21 Corporation, the leading pharmacy benefits manager in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs claimed that MC-21 extorted pharmacies by threatening them with exclusion from the network of pharmacy providers and with conducting arbitrary audits of pharmacy providers' services. Plaintiffs also claimed that MC-21 defrauded pharmacies through a scheme to underpay them for their services and failing to disclose how their prescription drug claims were processed and paid. From the parties' briefs on the issue of class certification the District Court had found "[d]efendants' arguments and the corresponding facts . . . so compelling," that instead of ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification, it ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. Upon plaintiffs' failure to show any reason that would prevent summary judgment, the District Court dismissed the case. After hearing oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal, the First Circuit upheld the District Court's judgment dismissing the case for lack of evidence to support a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The First Circuit's opinion was a well received victory for MC-21.