• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

United States Third Circuit

Eurofins pharma holdings v. Bioalliance Pharma sa sas (Decided on 12.10.2010)

Acquisition of intellectual property - Vitro phenotyping technology that assists in the development and administration of drugs used to treat HIV and Hepatitis B by testing the effectiveness of those drugs on specific patients' viruses, District Court's dismissal of the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens s affirmed - Whether District Court's denial of Plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery and dismissal of the complaint against BioAlliance Group for lack of personal jurisdiction were affirmed ?

Held, the relationship between Eurofins Group and BioAlliance Group was wholly contractual. As the District Court explained, being the foreign parent of a Delaware subsidiary, without more, is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under the Delaware long-arm statute.. It follows that BioAlliance Group's contractual right to select a board member-a lesser indicia of control than being the corporate parent of a Delaware subsidiary-is also insufficient, without more, to confer personal jurisdiction over BioAlliance Group.

Eurofins Group falls woefully short of making factual allegations suggesting with "reasonable particularity" the possible existence of contacts between BioAlliance Group and Delaware. Eurofins Group argued that the "heavily lawyered" nature of the Transfer Agreement leads it to conclude that it is unlikely, if not impossible, that BioAlliance Group did not participate in the decision to incorporate VI in Delaware. That reasoning, however, militates against Eurofins Group's position because evidence of any such participation would be in Eurofins Group's possession and is not dispositive of the issue of whether jurisdictional discovery is required.

Thus, Court affirm the District Court's denial of Eurofins Group's motion for jurisdictional discovery and the District Court's dismissal of the complaint against BioAlliance Group for lack of personal jurisdiction.

• ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

United states court of appeals,ninth circuit.

Western watersheds project v. Interior board of land appeals (Decided on 12.10.2010)

Appeal here involves the interplay between the issuance or renewal of Bureau of Land Management grazing permits and the fee-shifting provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act Western Watersheds Project ("Western Watersheds") appeals the summary judgment determination that EAJA fees were not available to Western Watersheds because its environmental claims were brought in a grazing permit renewal proceeding. The Court is agreed with the district court's reasoning and affirmed -Whether Western Watersheds' administrative appeal was an adjudication "for the purpose of granting or renewing a license" and thus excepted from the definition of "adversary adjudication" for which fees are otherwise recoverable under the EAJA.1

Held, Because Western Watersheds' commendable efforts to insure environmental compliance occurred within a proceeding Congress excepted from EAJA recovery, we affirm the district court's determination in that regard.The parties offer competing views on how to determine the "purpose" of an adjudication and, correspondingly, the availability of attorneys' fees under the EAJA. The Appeals Board argues that the purpose of an administrative appeal is controlled by the nature of the underlying agency action-in this case, the renewal of grazing permits. Western Watersheds contends that the purpose of its appeal was to enforce federal environmental laws, not to obtain or renew a license for itself. No doubt this was Western Watersheds' motive, and it succeeded in its effort, but this appeal turns on whether the "purpose" described in the license exception to the EAJA reflects the nature of the underlying proceeding, or if it can instead reflect a party's reason for appealing a permit renewal. Both parties claim that the plain text of the statute is sufficient to resolve the case. We agree, and conclude that the language of the EAJA supports the Appeals Board's interpretation.

• CRIMINAL LAW

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Smith v. Hy vee inc (Decided on 12.10.2010)

Dru D. Smith brought suit against her former employer, Hy-Vee, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of Hy-Vee on Smith's sexual harassment claim. At trial on the retaliation claim, the district court excluded evidence of specific instances and details of the alleged harassment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hy-Vee. Smith appeals, arguing the district court erred in granting Hy-Vee's motion for summary judgment on Smith's sexual harassment claim, excluding evidence of sexual harassment, and refusing to grant Smith a new trial. The present court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

Smith first challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Hy-Vee on Smith's sexual harassment claim.

Held, the District court judgment be reversed in part and remand for further proceedings. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there exists no genuine issue of material fact such that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party

Whether Smith the evidence presented of Lynch's physical touching of her body and other sexual references were sufficient to satisfy the third element of a hostile work environment claim?

Held, that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Smith, the evidence does not show that Lynch was motivated by sexual desire toward Smith. Rather, there is no evidence that Lynch's conduct was motivated by a particular attraction to Smith because Lynch exposed both men and women to the same behavior. There is also insufficient evidence to show Lynch was motivated by a general hostility to the presence of females in the workplace. Instead, the facts on record show that Lynch treated all employees, both male and female, in the same vulgar and inappropriate way. As such, Smith failed to present sufficient evidence that "the conduct · constituted gender discrimination, and not just · conduct · 'tinged with offensive sexual connotations. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hy-Vee on Smith's hostile work environment sexual harassment claim.