USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Overview
Tort law is based on the notion that if one party harms another intentionally or by being careless or reckless (“negligent”), then the aggrieved party may be entitled to restitution and be made “whole.” In some cases, there is strict liability, as in cases of defective products. If a product is found to be inherently unsafe or defective, strict liability is imposed; “strict” means that neither intent nor negligence needs to be proven.
Sometimes, a tort may also be a crime, as in the case of assault. Such a case can be brought both civilly and criminally. Here, we are only concerned with civil court cases. The court (using a judge or jury as fact-finder) will attempt to determine what damages are appropriate where a tort has been committed.
A court will attempt to determine exactly what needs to be done when an aggrieved party can demonstrate damages, and what those damages should be, in order to return a party to its state prior to the alleged action. This remedy is almost always money because, in reality, no one can go back and undo the wrongful action.
The purpose of this assignment is to:
Give you the opportunity to research and investigate a real court decision.
Challenge you to think about the business implications of the case and particularly how the case will impact a specific organization.
Choose a decision about tort law. To help you get started, use the Capella University Library Legal Research Library GuideLinks to an external site. and these well-known searchable databases of court cases. Try to imagine yourself as either the plaintiff or the defendant in the cases you review to make these cases meaningful to your life.
United States Supreme Court Cases.Links to an external site.
LII: Supreme Court: Most Recent DecisionsLinks to an external site.
.
Oyez, Inc.Links to an external site.
Select an organization not a party to the case that you believe would be impacted by the court decision. It can be an organization you work for or have worked for, an organization you would like to work for, or some other organization.
Use these resources to help you with this assignment:
Analyzing a Case
.
This multimedia walks you through a written court decision and explains each part’s purpose.
Business Law Foundational Concepts
.
Click Transcript(after you open the multimedia, Transcript is found at the lower right corner of the screen).
Use the transcript as another resource to quickly look up some of the more common terms. This terminology will be useful in personal, scholarly, and professional settings.
Four Ethical Theories
.
This multimedia sets forth several approaches to ethical thinking that can be applied to business.
This
Case Analysis Report: Executive Briefing Exemplar [DOCX]
Download Case Analysis Report: Executive Briefing Exemplar [DOCX]
shows a sample case law analysis. You may wish to refer to it as you work on your assignment.
Once you have selected a business-related case involving tort law and an organization impacted by the decision, assume you’re a senior manager in the organization you selected and that you were asked to prepare an analysis of the court decision and brief the executive team of the organization about the impact the case might have on the company. Your briefing should include a summary of the case, as well as an evaluation of how the court’s decision impacts the organization from a business, legal, and ethical perspective.
Be sure to list your case citation in the References page at the end of your assignment.
Step 1: Exhibit information literacy skills as applied to business law.
Identify the court, the parties who are before the court, and the date of the decision.
Ensure that your briefing provides an accurate context in terms of who brought the lawsuit and the outcome of the case.
Step 2: Summarize the facts and ruling of a legal case and its impact on businesses.
Provide a brief background and context associated with the case. Summarize the facts in no more than 1–2 paragraphs.
Identify the specific disagreement between the parties. Was there a dissenting opinion? If so, explain it.
Summarize the court’s ruling, including its rationale.
Analyze the impact of the case on businesses, including both negative and positive impacts.
Identify the ethical and legal implications for a business that were suggested by the court’s decision.
Discuss whether or not the conduct of a party in the case was ethical or unethical.
Propose and explain an ethical theory that describes why a party’s conduct was ethical or unethical.
Step 4:Explain how a legal case could impact a specific organization not a party to the case.
Explain the impact of the court’s decision on your selected organization. In light of the court’s ruling, how might the executive team of the organization make future decisions or policy?
Below is a SAMPLE case law analysis for you to use as a guide. You may not use this
case (Mayo Collaborative Services vs. Prometheus Laboratories) for either of the two
case law analysis assignments because it would be difficult not to plagiarize this analysis and briefing. The SAMPLE applies to the topic of intellectual property law (not to
contracts or torts).
Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).
Parties: Mayo Collaborative Services and Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
Court and Date Decided: United States Supreme Court (Decided March 20, 2012)
Background Facts: Prometheus Laboratories sued Mayo Collaborative Services for patent
infringement. The drug thiopurine, used for autoimmune disorders, is metabolized differently by different people, making dosing difficult. Prometheus created a process to check
the level of the drug in a person’s body. Prometheus obtained a patent for the blood testing
process. Mayo was a customer of Prometheus until Mayo decided to create its own measuring process for dosing. Prometheus then proceeded with the lawsuit for infringement. At the
federal district court where the trial occurred, the court found that there was patent infringement, but that the patent should not have been granted in the first place because the tests for
toxicity are based on natural laws and natural phenomena and are not patentable. On appeal
to the circuit court of appeals, the federal circuit reversed, finding that the test was patentable. Lastly, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the court reversed again and found that natural
processes cannot be patented because this would inhibit future scientific discovery by “improperly tying up the use of the laws of nature.”
Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court
The majority opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Breyer with no dissent. The opinion looked at the law governing what can be patented. It noted that Einstein could not have
patented E=MC² and neither could Newton have patented the law of gravity. So, why was
this matter even taken to court? Or, perhaps a better question is, why did the appeals court
find the toxicity test patentable? The reason is that the existing patent law legal test used by
the courts (called the “machine or transformation” test) requires that something be transformed (and not just in its natural state) to receive a patent. The appeals court thought that
the human body was changed or transformed when the blood test was administered so the
blood could be analyzed. However, the Supreme Court found that the test itself, which is
what was patented, did not change the human body. It was only the potentially toxic drug
that changed the body, and the test was developed using laws of nature to determine if there
was toxicity. The court also discussed that when it comes to patent law, there are always going to be two competing interests: the interest of society to grant patents to incentivize investment of time and money into creating innovative products and processes vs. the interest
of society in not tying up natural laws and processes to allow for more innovation by inventors.
Conclusion- Importance to Business Law & Ethical Implications
I agree with this decision. I have long thought that things like genes, for example, should not
be patentable because they exist in nature. Neither should math be patentable. However, experts who know a lot more than I do have criticized this decision because it is said to create
confusion about just what is patentable subject matter, since evidently there are sometimes
patents given to those who have reproduced natural processes (Eisenberg, 2011).
This case has strong application to business because it’s very important to know what is and
what is not patentable since businesses invest vast resources into research and development
of products and ideas. This case can negatively affect businesses that invest money and talent
in analyzing genes only to find they cannot patent genes because they are naturally occurring. On the other hand, the case can positively affect businesses that use those genes that
are naturally occurring, knowing that they will not be infringing on a patent. Our company,
Intellia Therapeutics, develops therapies by editing genes (in a way that is not naturally occurring) to heal diseased cells. We might be impacted by this decision because such a product would require a patent in order to be profitable and marketed exclusively. Any attempt to
interfere with the ability to patent our products (as Prometheus experienced) would threaten
the company’s profitability. I would recommend that Intellia Therapeutics monitor legal
cases regarding patentability of medicines that use biotechnology to ensure their patents are
safe from challenges of validity.
I think the parties in the case conducted themselves ethically. Prometheus might have felt
that Mayo, its former customer, was stepping on its toes by copying its test, but this is not
necessarily unethical because it’s a competitive world out there. According to Teleology
Theory, a theory of ethics, no one acted unethically here because this theory judges the morality of an action based on the outcome. Here, the outcome was that the test was not patentable; therefore, Mayo was not doing anything wrong.
References
Eisenberg, R. S. (2011). Wisdom of the ages or deadhand control? Patentable subject matter for
diagnostic methods after In re Bilski. University of Michigan Law Review.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&con
text=law_econ_current
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 U.S. 1289 (2012).
