Judge rules on Round-Up cancer warning

California's Proposition 65 will not be enforced against Bayer, the manufacturer of Round-Up, a federal court ruled on June 22^nd. The proposition required that products containing the chemical glyphosate be labeled as a carcinogen. However, the judge ruled that "the statement that glyphosate is 'known to the state of California to cause cancer' is misleading," the judge wrote. "Every regulator of which the court is aware, with the sole exception of the IARC, has found that glyphosate does not cause cancer or that there is insufficient evidence to show that it does." The IARC is the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, which deemed glyphosate a probable carcinogen in 2015.

The court ultimately decided that because of the weakness of the evidence linking glyphosate to cancer, it would overburden Bayer's right to free speech to force the company to add the warning mandated by California's Proposition 65.

The day before the court announced this decision, Bayer agreed to settle approximately 125,000 claims against it regarding cancer allegedly caused by Round-Up. The company will pay out a total of $10.1 billion dollars to address current and future claims against it. The company will pay between $8.8 billion of $9.6 billion to settle current claims against it and will dedicate another $1.25 billion to future claims. This settlement agreement includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing.

~A.

Who Owns the Intellectual Property Rights Associated with Hydroxychloroquine? - BrownWinick Law Firm

Just wondering....
https://brownwinick.com/2020/04/20/who-owns-the-intellectual-property-rights-associated-with-hydroxychloroquine/

Who Owns the Intellectual Property Rights Associated with Hydroxychloroquine?

digital lock to illustrate protected information

By: Jordan Meggison-Decker and Jonathan Soike

As efforts to discover new treatments for COVID-19 continue, attention has been brought upon an old drug, hydroxychloroquine. The renewed attention follows several statements by the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") and issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization for use of hydroxychloroquine from the national stockpile for treatment of COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine is a "modern" synthetic version of quinine which has been used for centuries for treatment of malaria. During the 1800s and early 1900s, quinine was given to British soldiers as a ration of tonic in certain geographic locations to prevent malaria. At some point, soldiers began adding gin to the tonic to cover the bitter taste of the quinine, leading to the popular cocktail. However, lest you be tempted to stave off COVID-19 with a steady stream self-quarantine gin and tonics, it should be noted that quinine has been recognized as being quite toxic since the 1940s, particularly with regard to retinal toxicity. High demand and the need for a safer alternative led to the creation of hydroxychloroquine by chemists Alexander R. Surrey and Henry F. Hammer in 1950.

If you are concerned hydroxychloroquine may be in short supply, you may be assured to know that no company has a monopoly on the production or sale of hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was once covered by U.S. Patent No. 2,546,658 which was issued to Surrey and Hammer in 1951, but this patent has long since expired. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, 10 companies were approved by the FDA to manufacture various generic versions of hydroxychloroquine in addition to the French company, Sanofi, who manufactures the brand name version, Plaquenil. With announcements of plans to escalate production from several of these companies, one would expect there to be an adequate supply if hydroxychloroquine is eventually shown to be an effective treatment for COVID-19.

If you have any questions, please reach out to your BrownWinick attorney or submit a message through our Contact Us form.

For updates on COVID-19 and new guidance provided by BrownWinick attorneys, please visit our COVID-19 Resource Page.

~A.