Craig S. Hilliard

Craig S. Hilliard has no picture

Craig S. Hilliard is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Litigation Group. He concentrates his practice in the area of federal civil litigation, including class actions, fraud, securities, employment, copyright/trademark and other complex civil litigation. Mr. Hilliard has served as trial counsel to three broker-dealer defendants in one of the largest class actions in the country, In re Bennett Funding Group Securities Litigation, now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He also defended a parallel class action proceeding in New York state court. Mr. Hilliard has considerable experience litigating claims, as counsel to both plaintiffs and defendants under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.


Articles By This Author

Settlement in Slimquick/Liquid Hoodia Class Action

no picture

Stark & Stark is representing a group of plaintiffs in a class action arising from the sale of several weight loss products in the United States including, Liquid Hoodia, Slimquick and NV products. If you, or someone you know, has purchased these products in the United States for personal use and not for resale between January 1, 2003 and August 5, 2011, you could receive a cash payment from a class action settlement.
 
A hearing is scheduled for November 2011 – at that time, if the Court approves the proposed settlement, anyone who purchased the products could be entitled to a cash refund. In order to obtain your refund, you must submit a claim form by October 24, 2011.

For more information and to submit a claim form, visit: www.WellNXUSASettlement.com. If you know of someone who has taken these products, we encourage you to share this information with them as well. If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, please feel free to contact us at 609.895.7324.

NuvaRing® Case Management Conference Scheduled

no picture

Judge Martinotti, who presides over the NuvaRing® mass tort cases in the Superior Court of New Jersey – Bergen County, will hold a case management conference on March 11, 2011.  At this conference, the judge will hear Defendants’ motion to dismiss Millian v. Organon. Defendants claim the statute of limitations has expired and the action is barred.  Underlying the statute of limitations issue in this motion is a choice of law issue.  The Court will address whether to apply the statute of limitations of Virginia, the plaintiff’s home state where her injuries were diagnosed, or New Jersey, the state where the action is filed.  The Court’s decision will likely apply to the remaining matters filed in this mass tort.

 

As we have discussed in previous posts, studies have shown that the ingredients contained in the birth control product NuvaRing® have been linked to various forms of severe side-effects including: heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (also known as DVT or blood clots), internal organ damage, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism.

 

At Stark & Stark we pursue claims throughout the nation against drug manufacturers, so they can be held accountable when the drugs they market are proven to be defective or cause catastrophic injury to the people who use them. Contact Stark & Stark to speak with one of the Mass Tort/ Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the manufacturers of NuvaRing®.

Copyright and the Internet: Protecting The Content of Your Website

no picture

In this day, virtually every successful business has a presence on the internet.  The importance of a website to a company’s marketing strategies, its product sales and its overall image cannot be understated.  Yet, many businesses often neglect to take steps to protect the content on their website.  They seem to forget that as easy as it is to place content online, it is even easier to copy it without permission.  Digital technology has made it enormously simple for one individual to instantly become a large publisher of information.  All it takes is a laptop computer and a broadband connection, and one person can disseminate copyrighted, or copyrightable, material across the boundless landscape of the Internet.  This makes policing infringers a very difficult and expensive task.  For large corporations like Microsoft, that cost is a necessary part of doing business in this day and age.  For small businesses, however, that cost is prohibitive.  This makes it even more important for copyright owners to develop (and execute) a plan to protect their websites before any publication or disclosure.       
 

What are the copyright issues raised?  First, who owns the copyright in the web site?  If you hire an outside consultant to develop the site, you may run into troublesome issues over ownership if you don't plan ahead.  The web site developer may claim an interest in the work as a compilation or in the underlying content itself.  Remember, the owner of the work under copyright law is the creator of the work, and not necessarily the person who paid for the work.  If one of your employees develops the web site at your direction, it will almost surely be considered a work-for-hire and you will own it.  However, someone outside your business will likely be considered an independent contractor, and therefore you should have a signed agreement designating the web site as a work made for hire.  That agreement should also contain an assignment of all copyright interests in the web site (in case a court disagrees that the work is done for hire). 
 

In any event, you should apply for a registration for your web site.  You should do it immediately (or at least within a month or so of the introduction of the site on the web) to protect your ability to seek enhanced damages and attorneys' fees in the event of infringement.  If it is possible, a single registration is recommended for all of the elements of the web site.  What happens if you continually update your site?  The U.S. Copyright Office offers what are called "group registrations" that may give web site owners a less expensive and less cumbersome alternative to separate registrations. The three applicable group registrations available are for updates to automated databases, serial publications (defined as works which are intended to be issued in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations, such as the January issue of a trade publication), and daily newsletters (which requires that publication occur at least twice a week).  The Copyright Office has deposit and timing rules for using the different group registration methods, so those rules should carefully be consulted to choose the right one for your needs.

 

In addition to taking the steps necessary to protect your original website content, you should be aware of other issues raised by the publication of material on the internet. Many web sites are going to be compilations of data or other information which may itself be copyrightable.  By definition, a database is a compilation.  Those of you who place content online should know that to the extent it is a compilation, anyone else is free to use the material contained in that compilation as long as the new work does not feature the old material in the same selection and arrangement.  Copyright protection of compilations is thin under current law.
 

Moreover, there may be separate authors of the contributions to a collective work (for example, the different chapters to a trade publication on the internet). Usually, the publisher of a collective work has the right to use the components of the collective work only as part of the collective work.  The rights to use the individual chapters stay with the author.  Freelance writers have challenged the distribution of their articles over the internet despite old agreements which give publishers broad distribution rights.  You should get appropriate warranties from anyone providing you with the work of other authors and take other steps (such as securing promises of indemnification) before publishing the works of others on your website.  With the global reach of your website, the financial consequences of not doing so can be devastating.  
 

Finally, one of the important "exclusive" rights of the copyright owner is the right to prepare derivative works, for example, the television program based on the book, or the sculpture based on the photograph.   In the world of the web, the derivative work may be the software program that is modified to perform an additional function, or a graphic image that incorporates a preexisting image.  The advent of new digital technologies makes it stunningly easy to modify original works of authorship, through the simple process of downloading and uploading information.  Your web site should include specific warnings to people who visit the site that the material is not only copyrighted, but that you maintain the right to make derivative works based on the preexisting material at the site.

YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® - How to Determine Where a Case Should be Heard

no picture

YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® are the subject of mass tort litigation treatment in the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and MDL treatment in the federal courts, Southern District of Illinois. In many cases, based on the state of residence of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel must make a determination as to which forum would be best for the plaintiff’s case. There are numerous factors that must be weighed in making this determination.

Usually, an attorney will look first to conflict of laws issues to determine whether a particular forum is most beneficial for liability and damages purposes. However, a many times overlooked consideration is a forum’s respective discovery standards and practices. Such discovery standards and practices dictate the amount of time and resources that a case will command and, even more importantly, the type and quality of evidence that will be produced in that case. As such, the choice of forum determination is especially critical in mass tort actions, where the plaintiff’s counsel must frequently decide whether to file in a state court mass tort or in a federal court MDL. 

For example, there is the fundamental question of whether a defendant’s counsel is permitted to engage in informal and largely private (“ex parte”) interviews of the plaintiff’s treating physicians. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.4, the New Jersey physician-patient privilege is waived by a plaintiff upon initiating a personal injury suit, which places his medical condition at issue. Moreover, ex parte contacts with a plaintiff's treating physicians are expressly permitted as a means of efficiently engaging in discovery and trial preparation. See Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368 (1985). However, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Jessica R. Mayer recently issued an opinion in the Aredia/Zometa mass tort, Gaus v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Docket No. L-7014-07MT (In re Aredia and Zometa, Case No. 278), holding that, while ex parte interviews are permitted under Stempler, the New Jersey Supreme Court clearly noted that ex parte contacts are not mandatory in all cases. Further, in “extreme cases” Stempler vests the trial court with discretion to prohibit the use of ex parte contacts, explaining that, in certain instances, the trial court may require depositions in accordance with formal discovery rules.

Judge Mayer found that the litany of potential issues of contention that will emanate from the ex parte interviews are virtually boundless. These issues include consent disputes, HIPAA authorization disputes and even the rights of the physicians to have their own counsel present. Considering the number of cases in a mass tort litigation, the court posited that it lacks sufficient judicial resources and time to deal with the continuous motions that the parties will inevitably file with regard to these issues. Thus, the court found that the alleged efficiency of allowing Stempler interviews does not outweigh the impracticality of doing so in these mass tort cases.

However, the court found that, in the interests of fairness, neither party is permitted to engage in ex parte contacts with the plaintiffs' treating physicians or influence the deposition or trial testimony of the plaintiffs' treating physicians. Thus, all parties shall proceed by way of formal deposition of the plaintiffs' treating physicians.

It would be difficult to understate the significance of these types of conflict of laws rulings with regard to both timing and expense, as well as the effect on the evidence that will naturally be at the heart of each of the mass tort cases. Only through the careful consideration of these and many other state and federal conflict of laws issues, can an informed forum selection choice be made.

Courts in the United States Have Consolidated NuvaRing® Lawsuits on Both the State and Federal Levels

no picture

As we have discussed in previous posts, pending lawsuits against the manufacturers of NuvaRing®, state that the birth control product has led to severe side-effects such as: heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (also known as DVT or blood clots), internal organ damage, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism.
 

Courts in the United States have consolidated the NuvaRing® lawsuits on both the State (Mass Tort) and federal (MultiDistrict Litigation or “MDL”) levels. The Mass Tort is presided over by Judge Brian R. Martinotti, in the New Jersey Superior Court - Bergen County. The MDL is presided over by Judge Rodney W. Sippel, in the United States District Court - Eastern District of Missouri. Both judges often collaborate in an effort to assimilate the cases pending in each court. In fact, during the March 3, 2010, Mass Tort case management conference, Judge Martinotti adopted an order recently entered by Judge Sippel, which will permit counsel to coordinate discovery in all cases pending in both the Mass Tort and MDL.
 

If you, or someone you know, has been injured as a result of taking NuvaRing® contact Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation Team to speak with one of the Mass Tort/ Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the manufacturers of NuvaRing®.

New Jersey State Courts Consider Granting Mass Tort Designation to YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® Cases

no picture

As we have discussed in previous posts, studies have shown that the ingredients contained in YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® have been linked to various forms of severe Yaz side-effects. Reportedly, these side-effects include: heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (also known as DVT or blood clots), internal organ damage (including gallbladder damage), myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. Recently, a large number of YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® cases have been designated as Mass Tort or Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) cases.

The New Jersey State Courts are currently contemplating granting Mass Tort designation to YAZ®, Yasmin® and Ocella® cases currently pending in New Jersey. The makers of YAZ®, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, are headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey. The makers of Ocella®, Barr Pharmaceuticals, are headquartered in Montvale, New Jersey. Similar cases have received MDL treatment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and Mass Tort treatment in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Mass Tort would eventually be venued in Atlantic, Bergen or Middlesex counties. 

Retrofitness Sued By New Jersey Fitness Club Owners

no picture

Model A Fitness of Boonton, New Jersey has sued Retrofitness for fraud, consumer fraud, breach of contract, and violations of New Jersey’s Franchise Practices Act. Retrofitness Enterprises and Retrofitness Corp. owns, operates and franchises body building, health and fitness facilities under the “Retrofitness” trademark. The Retrofitness lawsuit is being watched by franchisors and franchisees alike.

 

Retrofitness franchises have been steadily increasing in number over the last few years.  Back in November 2005, Retrofitness entered into a license agreement with Model A’s owners for the development of a facility in Boonton, but Model A alleges in its Complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court that Retrofitness’ principal, Eric Casaburi, enticed them into the license agreement through a series of false promises and misrepresentations, and then attempted to coerce them into signing a franchise agreement on far less favorable terms for the owners.  When the owners refused, Retrofitness terminated the license agreement and, according to the Complaint, opened a new location up the street which unfairly competed with Model A. 

 

The case is being watched because it raises significant issues under the Franchise Practices Act, and also because it will test the applicability of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act generally to franchises.  The Complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court can be viewed online here.

A Few Things Everyone Should Know About Copyright Law

no picture

Copyright law is often the first and best line of defense against unauthorized reproduction of the products of the creative mind. As important as the law is to the work of so many firms, such as advertising agencies, software developers, artists and music publishers, it is a frequently misunderstood law. The following illustrations highlight a few of the important pillars of federal copyright law everyone should know:      


1. You recently wrote a scholarly article for a trade journal, and shortly after it was published discovered that a substantially similar article appeared in another journal.  Unfortunately, you never registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, nor did you put any copyright notice on the article.  Do you have any rights?

Yes.  Under the Copyright Act of 1909, copyright owners forfeited their rights when they failed to mark each copy of their work with a proper copyright notice (name, date and copyright symbol).  Under the 1976 and 1988 amendments to the statute, however, the formalities of the earlier law have been all but eliminated.  Now, for all works first published after March 1, 1989, no copyright notice is required to secure protection for the author (although it is still recommended and used widely).  Moreover, contrary to popular myth, registration affects only the enforceability, not the existence, of copyright.  Copyright arises upon creation of the work, and registration merely gives the author certain additional rights, such as the right to sue to enforce the copyright and the right to claim enhanced damages.

2.    You discover that someone first copied and sold your computer program ten years ago, and is continuing to infringe the work to this day.  Can you pursue such a claim even though it is so old? 
Yes.  Although the Copyright Act contains a three-year statute of limitations, most courts hold that either:

1) the statute does not begin to run until the date of the last act of infringement; or

2) the statute permits recovery of all damages occurring within the three-year period preceding suit, even if some acts of infringement occurred beyond that period. Therefore, you can probably still pursue much of the claim.

3. You are the owner of an advertising agency, and your creative director tells you that she had no idea that employees were making unauthorized use of copyrighted material for the benefit of the agency.  Is this a defense?
No. Innocent intent, good faith, or even subconscious copying are not defenses to copyright infringement.  Although it may have a great bearing on the issue of whether the infringement was willful (subjecting the company to enhanced damages), the copyright owner only needs to prove that unlawful copying occurred.  The company itself may be liable if it provided the means for its employees to commit the infringement, and had or should have had knowledge of the infringing activity (known under the law as “contributory” infringement), or if it had the right to control the employee's conduct and received a financial benefit from the infringement (known as “vicarious” infringement).
 

4. You have a great idea you want to copyright, and it involves a new system for processing customer orders.  You have written down your ideas in a concise document.  Will a copyright registration protect this idea?
 Probably Not. Unlike patents, copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas.  Moreover, the rights granted by Congress to copyright holders in the Copyright Act are not unlimited.  The statute grants a copyright holder certain exclusive rights, including:

1) the right to reproduce;

2) the right to prepare derivative works;

3) the right of public distribution;

4) the right of public performance; and

5) the right of public display. 

The Act does not give the owner a monopoly on the ideas embodied in the work, and in fact the statute is explicit in stating that "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery...."  This is the famous "idea/expression" dichotomy of copyright law.   Therefore, even if you file a registration, the scope of protection may be quite limited. 

Court Dismisses Class Action Claims in NuvaRing® Litigation

no picture

In a recent blog post, it was reported that NuvaRing® plaintiffs had filed a master consolidated complaint in order to supplement the complaints in the individual NuvaRing® litigation cases. On May 19, 2009, the Court dismissed the class action claims in the Master Consolidated Complaint.  The Court noted that such claims are usually not appropriate for personal injury lawsuits based on pharmaceuticals.  However, the Court dismissed the claims without prejudice, which would allow Plaintiffs to reassert their rights to a class action, if such an assertion is appropriate at some time in the future.  This dismissal did not affect the substantive claims of Negligence, Fraud, and other causes of action. 

Older Entries