Professor Sean Tu Authors Op-Ed in L.A. Times on Drug Patents

This week, West Virginia College of Law professor Sean Tu published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times with co-authors Michael A. Carrier and Charles Duan. The op-ed, titled "Prevent a legal catch-22 that could push thousands of generic drugs off the market" appeared on September 21, 2022 and follows the filing of an amicus curiae brief by the authors in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 22-37. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this forthcoming Ocobter 2022 term.

A summary of Brief of 42 Professors of Law, Economics, Business, and Medicine as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petition follows:

Professor Jesse Richardson Gives SCOTUS Preview on Ag Law in the Field Podcast

West Virginia University College of Law professor Jesse Richardson was recently interviewed by Tiffany Lashmet on Ag Law in the Field with Professor.  The podcast is an interview series examining issues in agricultural law.  In episode 137 of the podcast, Professor Richardson and Anthony Schutz of the University of Nebraska discuss the agricultural law cases in the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court term.

Professor Anne Marie Lofaso Publishes Commentary on LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company in Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases

West Virginia University College of Law professor Anne Marie Lofaso recently published new work in the ABA's PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Lofaso writes commentary on LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Docket No. 20-807, an upcoming labor and employment law case.  It is titled "Is a Locomotive In Use and Therefore Subject to Locomotive Inspection Act Liability When It Makes a Temporary Stop?"  Professor Lofaso's contribution appears in volume 49, issue 6 of the journal, published in March 2022.

Case at a Glance:

Professor Jesse Richardson Comments on SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Mississippi v. Tennessee.

On Monday, October 4 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mississippi v. Tennessee. Both states have filed exceptions to the latest recommendations of Special Master. Mississippi filed suit arguing, essentially, that Memphis, Tennessee has stolen the groundwater from beneath Mississippi by placing several high volume water wells near the state line.

The litigation began in 2005, when Mississippi filed suit against the Memphis public water supplier in federal court. The district court and court of appeals both found that Mississippi needed to file suit against Tennessee and request that the United States Supreme Court divide the groundwater between the states (“equitable apportionment”). The United States, without comment, refused to hear the appeal and denied Mississippi’s motion to file a bill of complaint, in 2010.