With the global coronavirus pandemic continuing to damage health systems and economies worldwide, there is a desperate need to start transitioning out of lockdown and reopen communities and cities in the safest way possible. Shapes AI, a computer vision and artificial intelligence company, has launched a platform to support this transition by tracking and monitoring social distancing and the wearing of masks.

Younger consumers in the UK feel more optimistic than those over 35 and are likely to be more willing to embrace the lockdown loosening when it happens. Retailers will be eager to bring shoppers back into their stores after weeks of being closed and those targeting younger consumers are likely to see footfall return more quickly than players aimed at the more cautious over 35s, says GlobalData, the data and analytics company.

With a focus on using artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML) to better predict demand and improve companies operations from end-to-end, Blue Yonder Holding, Inc. (Blue Yonder), has launched its reimagined Luminate Planning portfolio. This powerful set of solutions enables boundaryless planning providing customers with integrated sales and operations execution (S&OE); limitless, always-on planning; and an intelligence engine that can predict and pivot to deliver an autonomous supply chain.

Business technology solutions provider Brother UK, has launched free licences for its remote diagnostics software to ensure reseller partners can provide maintenance support to their customers, without the need for engineer callouts.

With its new Memor 20, Datalogic comments that it is launching a PDA that empowers users in retail, field services, logistic environments and healthcare with a device that combines the best features of a smartphone with the highest standards of enterprise level devices.

TruTac, the tachograph and compliance software provider that recently received a Queen’s Award for Innovation, has launched a new fleet system for the planning and management of HGV and PSV vehicle maintenance and compliance.

The transitional return to work is thankfully on – but companies still face the challenge of maintaining social distancing guidelines while preserving business productivity.

The winners of the 45th annual competition showcase a spectacular blend of science and artistry under the microscope.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Medical Board of California's seizure of data from the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) without a warrant or subpoena but supported by good cause in the course of investigating a patient's physician was not a violation of the patient's right to privacy because even if this would be an intrusion on a legally protected privacy interest, the Board's actions were justified.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court order decertifying a class action relating to an alleged aphrodisiac called 'Cobra Sexual Energy' because the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class on the basis of the plaintiff's inability to prove restitution damages through the full refund model because plaintiff's damages model matched his theory of liability and because his damages model was supportable on evidence that could be introduced on trial and whether plaintiff could provide damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full refund model was a question of fact to be decided at trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a conviction for dihydorcodeinone/Vicodin because the prosecution didn't establish that it was a controlled substance, but affirming other aspects of an appeal, including affirming the use of information relating to the Ident-A-Drug website because it came within the published exception to the hearsay rule and the challenged hearsay was not testimonial.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consumer protection class action, alleging that various defendants' prescription eye drop medications come with a bottle dropper tip that dispenses too much medication in one drop, thereby wasting medication and causing plaintiffs undue economic hardship, the district court's dismissal is reversed where plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury in fact to confer Article III standing under to bring their various state law claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that patents relating to aspects of the production of an antibiotic compound were obvious implementations of disclosures made in other patents that would constitute nothing more than the routine way a skilled artisan would apply the patent's teachings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, the district court's judgment for plaintiff Bayer is reversed where it clearly erred in determining that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to create an oral disintegrating tablet version of an erectile dysfunction drug using specified sugar alcohols with the tablet formulated for immediate-release.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the denial of attorney fees and costs to a man who sued claiming that he developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome as the result of a flu vaccination because the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that there was no reasonable basis for the claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense's sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none of the patents were invalid for obviousness.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the conviction of a man on a number of charges involving misbranded drugs because the court erred in excluding evidence relating to the defendant's advice-of-counsel defense.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Returning once again after climbing and descending the appellate ladder several times, the court held that the defendant had not forfeited its preemption defense and that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act preempts state law remedies for an applicant's failure to comply with aspects of the Act, and affirming the dismissal of the state law claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing and Remanding an order dismissing counts in an indictment charging three defendants involving the dispensing of misbranded drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the judge's analysis involved several out-of-place factual assumptions that led to an incorrect finding regarding the sufficiency of an indictment.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's finding of noninfringement and remanding to determine whether the on-sale bar applies in a case relating to an anti-coagulant drug because a different production method was distinguished from the patented method and a patent is invalid if the product was offered for sale and ready for patenting prior to the filing of the application.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the District Court's determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment for the defense in a diversity action brought by doctors alleging claims arising from their assignment of patents to the company that it failed to develop into FDA-approved drugs because the jury instructions were not improper and the verdict wasn't against the clear weight of the evidence.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partly affirming, partly vacating, and remanding the district court dismissal of a False Claims Act action brought against three pharmaceutical companies in a case involving off-label drug use and kickbacks to doctors because claims were substantially similar to those that had already been publicly disclosed, vacating to determine whether the situation qualified for the original source exception.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court decision holding that a putative class action suit that organic labeled baby formula included ingredients not permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act because their state law claims were preempted by the Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a Tax Court determination that royalties paid on technology license agreements should be treated as ordinary income rather than as capital gains in the case of a pharmaceutical scientist raking it in on liquisolid technologies hoping to avoid paying a significant tax bill.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of a case in which a class of purchasers of securities issued by a drug company that the investors said recklessly misled them about their target date for submitting an application to the Food and Drug Administration for a drug approval because the court did not err in finding that they had failed to state a claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the district court holding, after a bench trial, that the asserted claims of a patent relating to the treatment of schizophrenia with iloperidone administered based on the genotype of the patient were infringed and not invalid.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that a chemical compound that mirrored a patented chemical compound was encompassed by the description that only portrayed one of the arrangements in the claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's conclusion that Monsanto and others failed to state a claim in a suit where they averred that Proposition 65's reliance on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's determinations about which chemicals cause cancer improperly granted a foreign entity authority over domestic affairs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in a case in which the government offered evidence that the defendant and co-conspirators abused their positions as healthcare providers by intentionally prescribing OxyContin for no legitimate medical purpose as part of a scheme to sell it as a street drug because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury findings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to reverse an order transferring a petitioner's class action from the US District Court for the Southern District of California to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California because it was a clear error to transfer to a venue that was not proper under the general venue statute, but despite the clear legal error there was no practical impact the case would have on the procedural posture and any injury faced was purely speculative, so the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was not warranted.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the judgment that Merck, initially defending its patent on Hepatitis C drugs against a competitor seeking to have them found invalid, who successfully counter-sued for infringement, had unclean hands regarding the patents and was properly barred from asserting its patents and awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of an interference claim for lack of standing and remanding for further proceedings because the description of a method for removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles was a sufficient written description under the Patent Act because although the description only gave optical density rather than particles per ml, this was enough of a disclosure to convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed against the producer of several antiviral drugs used in the treatment of AIDS by an organization providing medical care to AIDS sufferers seeking to have patents declared invalid because the action failed to meet the requirements of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding of patents relating to boron-containing small molecules used to treat fungal infections, holding that all of the claims of a patent owned by a company were unpatentable for obviousness.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and reversing in part the inter partes review decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Bard holding claims for methods of distributing nitric oxide gas cylinders for pharmaceutical applications used in treating respiratory failure as unpatentable as obvious because, while the Board didn't err as to most of the rulings, it did as to one.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in a case where a group of pharmaceutical companies had been sued by the District Attorney under California's Unfair Competition Law for allegations that they had engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market, but the suit was based on conduct outside of the county where the DA served and allowing them to proceed with the suit without written consent would permit the DA to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind other DAs, precluding them from pursuing their own relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - The People appealed the order dismissing the complaint for a medical marijuana conviction. The Court reversed the dismissal. Defendant argued that the appeal was moot as a result of the passage of the California Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument because the Court concluded, the Act was not intended to be retroactive for this conviction. A reversal was required because the trial court abused its discretion in mistakenly dismissing the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this sentencing reduction for marijuana possession under Health and Safety Code section 11359 case, the 4th Appellate District court reversed the superior court’s order denying defendant’s request to reduce his felony marijuana conviction because of his conviction of four counts of attempted murder. The appellate court held that the conviction for attempted murder in the same case for the marijuana conviction did not render the defendant ineligible for resentencing under the Health and Safety Code.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a conviction for the sale of marijuana in a case where the defendant operated a business selling medical marijuana products in Livermore, which has a municipal ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries. The defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying him the ability to assert a medical-marijuana defense. The appeals court agreed and overturned his conviction, holding that the trial judge's ruling that barred him from raising a medical-marijuana defense violated his constitutional right to present a defense.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a False Claims Act lawsuit had to be dismissed because it was not the first-filed case accusing the defendant pharmaceutical company of certain improper Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. The plaintiff (relator) argued that his action should be allowed to proceed because the earlier action was no longer pending. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that a violation of the first‐to‐file bar, which prohibits a person from bringing a related qui tam action when one is already pending, cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint. The panel reversed and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part the dismissal of a securities fraud class action alleging that a biotechnology firm misrepresented to investors the status of a clinical drug trial. An investor brought this suit contending that the company and certain top executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in part in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. The panel also ruled that the district court abused its discretion in judicially noticing certain facts and in incorporating certain documents into the complaint.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that vaccinations given to an infant did not cause him to develop a seizure condition. The parents of an infant who developed an illness called Dravet syndrome after being vaccinated sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Agreeing with the findings of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the parents failed to show that the infant's injuries were caused by his vaccinations.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of two putative antitrust class actions alleging that a pharmaceutical company took steps to block the entry of generic versions of its leukemia-treatment drug into the U.S. market. The plaintiffs, including several labor union benefit funds, claimed that the drugmaker engaged in anticompetitive conduct by bringing sham infringement lawsuits against manufacturers trying to enter the market with generic versions of that drug. Dismissing the complaints, the district court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged their claims, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a consumer complaint alleging that manufacturers of prescription eye drops deliberately designed their bottles to emit unnecessarily large drops in a ploy to force patients to waste the expensive medication and thus buy more of it. Moving to dismiss on preemption grounds, the manufacturers contended that the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any modification of the medication's bottle. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that FDA regulations preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims seeking to force a change in the bottle design.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.