Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,607,059 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Court Issues Summary Judgment Rulings.


CHESTER, Va. -- Star Scientific, Inc. (NASDAQ NASDAQ
 in full National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations

U.S. market for over-the-counter securities. Established in 1971 by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), NASDAQ is an automated quotation system that reports on
:STSI STSI Space Telescope Science Institute
STSI Surface Transportation Security Inspection (US TSA)
STSI Scalable Time-Slot Interchanger
STSI Sustav Tehnickih Servisa Inc (Croatian engineering company) 
) announced that on Friday January 19, 2007 the Honorable Marvin J. Garbis issued two decisions in Star Scientific's patent litigation An action brought in court to enforce a particular right. The act or process of bringing a lawsuit in and of itself; a judicial contest; any dispute.

When a person begins a civil lawsuit, the person enters into a process called litigation.
 against RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc. (RJR RJR R.J. Reynolds
RJR Thorny Skate (FAO fish species code) 
). On the issue of indefiniteness, the Court granted RJR's motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment n. a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded (testimony outside court) affidavits (or declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact, answers  of invalidity based on claim indefiniteness, and denied Star's cross-motion on the same subject. In a second memorandum and order, the Court granted in part and denied in part RJR's motion for summary judgment regarding the priority date of the patent, establishing September 15, 1999 as the effective filing date for the patents-in-suit. The Court rejected certain other arguments presented by Reynolds and otherwise denied summary judgment on this second motion.

Judge Garbis advised in a separate memorandum that he would not enter judgment on the indefiniteness ruling until he issues the pending ruling on the inequitable conduct In United States patent law, patent holders must go to the federal courts to enforce their patent rights. Even if the patent is valid and infringed, these courts may exercise their equitable discretion not to enforce the patent if the patentee has engaged in inequitable conduct.  defense tried in January-February 2005. The Court advised that it expects to issue that ruling "before the end of February and, hopefully, well before the end of the month."

Star Scientific believes that the decision of the Court in its two memoranda, and the grounds articulated for those decisions, are incorrect. As soon as final judgment is entered, the company will appeal these decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a United States court of appeals. The Federal Circuit was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982.

The court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and occupies the Howard T.
, and remains confident that it will win on all issues on appeal.

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA) implemented several significant substantive changes affecting certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation and awards fees and  of 1995. The Company has tried, whenever possible, to identify these forward-looking statements using words such as "anticipates", "believes", "estimates", "expects", "plans", "intends" and similar expressions. These statements reflect the Company's current beliefs and are based upon information currently available to it. Accordingly, such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause the Company's actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such statements. These risks, uncertainties and contingencies include, without limitation, the challenges inherent in new product development initiatives, particularly in the smokeless tobacco smokeless tobacco,
n chewing tobacco (leaves) or tobacco powder (snuff) that allows the nicotine to be absorbed through the mucous membrane of the oral cavity or digestive tract. It is related to a high risk of oral cancer.
 area, the uncertainties inherent in the progress of scientific research, the Company's ability to raise additional capital in the future necessary to maintain its business, potential disputes concerning the Company's intellectual property, risks associated with litigation regarding such intellectual property, potential delays in obtaining any necessary government approvals of the Company's low-TSNA tobacco products, market acceptance of the Company's new smokeless tobacco products, competition from companies with greater resources than the Company, the Company's decision not to join the Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA (Metropolitan Service Area) An urban area with at least 50,000 people plus surrounding counties. There are 306 MSAs and 428 RSAs (rural service areas) in the U.S. MSAs and RSAs are used to allocate cellular licenses. "), the effect of state statutes adopted under the MSA and any subsequent modification of the MSA, and the company's dependence on key employees and on its strategic relationships with Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in light of its combination with RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc. The impact of potential litigation, if initiated against or by individual states that have adopted the MSA, could be materially adverse to the Company.

See additional discussion under "Factors That May Affect Future Results" in the Company's Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the SEC on March 22, 2006, and other factors detailed from time to time in the Company's other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, available at www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or advise upon any such forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

About Star Scientific

Star Scientific is a technology-oriented tobacco company with a toxin reduction mission. It is engaged in the development of tobacco products that deliver fewer carcinogenic carcinogenic

having a capacity for carcinogenesis.
 toxins (principally, tobacco specific nitrosamines nitrosamines

highly hepatotoxic compounds formed in the rumen by the combination of amines and nitrite. They do not appear to occur naturally in large quantities. Nitrosamine poisoning has also been caused by feeding nitrite-treated fishmeal and Solanum incanum.
, or TSNAs), through the utilization of the innovative StarCured[R] tobacco curing technology, and in sublicensing that technology to others. Star Scientific has a Corporate and Sales Office in Chester, VA, an Executive, Scientific & Regulatory Affairs office in Bethesda, MD, and manufacturing and tobacco processing facilities in Chase City, VA and in Petersburg, VA.

See Star's website at: http://www.starscientific.com
COPYRIGHT 2007 Business Wire
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Business Wire
Date:Jan 19, 2007
Words:683
Previous Article:Fitch Upgrades 3 Classes from 2 GE Corporate Aircraft Finance Transactions.
Next Article:Webcast of Alexander & Baldwin's 2006 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Earnings Call Live at 2 p.m. EST, Thursday, February 1, 2007.



Related Articles
U.S. District Court: CROWDING CONDITIONS MEDICAL CARE.
Gailor v. Armstrong.
Gailor v. Armstrong.
Gailor v. Armstrong.
Gailor v. Armstrong.
Brown v. Mitchell.
Brown v. Mitchell.
Brown v. Mitchell.
Atkins v. County of Orange.
Atkins v. County of Orange.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles