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

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