Rikatazz

Howard Press Files

The first file is the December, 1965 FDA Report on Enforcement and Compliance.

• FDA Report p.1
  FDA Report p.1
• FDA Report p.2
  FDA Report p.2

Timeline per this article:

1962: Press was convicted ("three years ago") in a New Jersey court for counterfeiting drugs (i.e. the General Pharmacal crime)

Late 1962: Press and other defendants begin counterfeiting of Dexedrine and Dexamyl Spansules

Jul 1963: Press and others caught in interstate shipment of counterfeit merchandise

Oct 1963: DOJ seizes a second shipment, including stolen Mysteclin-F tablets

Aug 1964: FDA makes undercover purchases from Klein, Taylor, and Morris Furer in Newark; and Information is filed against these three and Press

Oct 1964: Co-defendant Morris Furer's house is searched and discover over 1,000,000 counterfeit capsules and tablets

Oct 27, 1965: Press and other defendants indicted by a Newark, NJ grand jury. The previously filed Information charging interstate shipments of counterfeit drugs were dismissed in favor of the consolidated indictment (i.e. charges from the 1961 General Pharmacal indictment were combined into this indictment, now 18 counts)

Dec 12, 1965: Press arraigned before a Federal court in New Jersey, charged with fraud and conspiracy to violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Press pleads not guilty and was released under bond.

The second file is the November 13, 1973 summary judgment in the case Press v. Forest Laboratories, et. al

• 1973 Press v Forest p.1
  1973 Press v Forest p.1
• 1973 Press v Forest p.2
  1973 Press v Forest p.2
• 1973 Press v Forest p.3
  1973 Press v Forest p.3

Timeline per this article:

Early 1950s: Press and Lowey in business together at Bonded Laboratories (note: further documents I have show that Lowey was President of Bonded at the time; relationship began mid-1950 or so)

Late 1951: Press leaves Bonded

Jun 3, 1953: Press files patent; Lowey claims it should be jointly owned

Jun 29, 1953: Press and Lowey enter agreement effecting joint ownership

1956: Press sues Lowey in NY State Supreme Court seeking to terminate the 1953 agreement and for an accounting (note: further documents I have show that this took place on or before June 19, 1956)

July 19, 1956: Lowey files patent

May 1957: The 1956 action was ended, by a stipulation of settlement and discontinuance, pursuant to which general releases were exchanged

Sep 23, 1958: Lowey's patent is issued

Sep 20, 1960: Press's patent is issued

Oct 4, 1965: Plaintiff Press files case, alleging in one count six causes of action (patent infringement, wrongful appropriation of patent, fraud, antitrust violations, abuse of process, libel and slander)

Nov 13, 1973: Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing all six claims

Notes:

(1) Press, in his deposition, states that he was convicted of felony charges at least twice and has served at least a year in federal prison for his last conviction

(2) The judge found Press's actions completely frivolous and a waste of the Court's time. Quotes:

"...the court dismissed the plaintiff's...claims because they were completely unsupported"

"...lack of merit of these claims"

"...the claimed abuse of process is complete nonsense"

"...the monopoly charges are utterly without substance or foundation of fact"

"...the plaintiff can still produce no proof or even a colorable allegation that the defendants have infringed his patent"

"...the claim is a sham"

"...A reading of the two patents shows that they are markedly dissimilar and are based on totally different concepts. The defendants point to the fact that the Patent Office in granting the Lowey patent did not even cite the Press patent as prior art in the field. The defendants also have submitted affidavits that the two patents are totally dissimilar. This proof is cumulative but unnecessary for I find from a reading of the patents involved that there was no "appropriation" and that therefore the cause of action for 'wrongful appropriation' must fall."

"Before closing this opinion I must comment that it is unfortunate for the federal courts to be used for so baseless a law suit in which it is obvious that a personal vendetta has been vented. The answering affidavits on this motion are replete with fruitless allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, e.g., alleged violations of the Securities Acts, the Internal Revenue Act and the Pure Food & Drug Act. It is similarly unfortunate that this case was allowed to drag on for such an extended period of time without a prior motion to dismiss."

Hello

Rikatazz, I realize you can't email attachments via wikimail - my email is milo_went (at) yahoo.com. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:19731113 Press v Forest3.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:19731113 Press v Forest3.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:19731113 Press v Forest2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:19731113 Press v Forest2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:19731113 Press v Forest1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:19731113 Press v Forest1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:19651201 FDA Report2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:19651201 FDA Report2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)