caltradesecrets.com

Archive for the ‘Other Cases of Interest’ Category

Texas Pharmacies File Trade Secret Misappropriation Lawsuit Against CVS Caremark

In Other Cases of Interest on October 4, 2010 at 9:17 am
CVS/pharmacy on Garrett Road in Durham, North ...

Image via Wikipedia

Business Wire reports that six independent pharmacies in Texas have filed suit against CVS Caremark for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations and trade secret misappropriation.  The complaint alleges that CVS Caremark violates the firewall between the retail pharmacy and the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) entities, as required when the Federal Trade Commission approved the CVS and Caremark 2007 merger.  The combined company allegedly built an information technology platform that straddles all of CVS Caremark’s business segments, capturing in-depth patient data for marketing and other purposes in violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws.  “CVS Caremark traps patients and non-CVS retail pharmacies in a scheme to deny patient choice of pharmacy and to smother business competition,” said Amanda Gohlke Fields, American Pharmacies general counsel.  Plaintiffs allege that patient information gathered from non-CVS pharmacies includes names, addresses, birth dates, medical diagnoses, prescription histories, and prescribing physicians, which CVS Caremark allegedly mines to identify individual patient buying practices, their physicians’ prescribing practices, and individual pharmacy business volume.

For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World’s Favorite Drink and Changed History

In Criminal Theft of Trade Secrets, Other Cases of Interest on August 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm
ISTANBUL, TURKEY - NOVEMBER 08:  A cayci ('tea...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sarah Rose recently published a well-received book on one of the Western world’s greatest trade secret thefts called For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World’s Favorite Drink and Changed History.  Ms. Rose discusses how the British government plotted to and then did steal tea plants from China, successfully transplanting them in India, making the British Empire less reliant on trade with China.

You can read an interview here.  And you can purchase the book on Amazon.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta

Breaking News: Judge Vaughn Walker Strikes Down Proposition 8

In Breaking News, Other Cases of Interest on August 4, 2010 at 2:12 pm
A woman makes her support of her marriage, and...
Image via Wikipedia

Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of California issued his much anticipated ruling today in Perry, et al. v. Shwarzenegger, et al., Case No. C09-2292 VRW.  Judge Walker struck down the so-called gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, concluding that “Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8.”   The case involved a challenge to the November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7.5.

The Court concluded that:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

The Court ordered the following:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Enhanced by Zemanta