The attorney representing dialysis patients once treated at Grady Memorial Hospital plans to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to reinstate the complaint he filed against Grady.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville recently dismissed the complaint; attorney Lindsay Jones filed his notice of appeal on Tuesday.

The hospital, citing financial losses, closed its dialysis clinic in October.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of about 50 plaintiffs, most of whom are illegal immigrants. Grady has been paying for the patients to get treatment at Fresenius, an outside provider. The hospital, however, has said it can't pay for such services forever and has urged patients to find other long-term care solutions.

Grady spokesman Matt Gove declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Attorneys for Dow Chemical have asked a Delaware judge to disqualify an opposing law firm in a dispute over whether Dow should be forced to complete a proposed $15 billion buyout of specialty chemical maker Rohm & Haas.

Dow attorney David Bernick argued Wednesday that the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz has an ethical conflict in representing Rohm & Haas because it has advised Dow in the past on key strategic issues and has a continuing relationship with the Michigan-based chemical giant.

But Wachtell attorney Marc Wolinsky said Dow cannot prove a continuing relationship with his law firm, and that any confidential information it might have received from Dow in the past would not give Philadelphia-based Rohm & Haas a material advantage in the current litigation.

Wolinsky also said Dow has known since June 2008 that Wachtell Lipton was representing Rohm & Haas, and that Dow has waited too long to object.

Chancellor William Chandler III told attorneys that we would rule on the motion for disqualification by the close of business Wednesday.

Dow has said that it cannot complete the buyout as planned because of global economic conditions and the decision by a state-owned Kuwaiti petrochemical firm to pull out of a joint venture that would have provided Dow with several billion dollars, some of which would have been used to acquire Rohm & Haas.

A trial to determine whether Dow should be forced to complete the acquisition using a bridge loan or other financing scheme is set to begin March 9.

The US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday that Internet phone company Vonage can subscribe new customers while it appeals a lower court finding that it infringed three patents held by Verizon Communications, Inc. In the wake of the finding, US District Judge Claude M. Hilton issued an order prohibiting Vonage from subscribing new customers. Vonage will also continue paying a 5.5 percent royalty rate on all future sales to an escrow account while the appeal is pending. The appeals court scheduled oral arguments for June 25.

Verizon filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vonage in June, accusing it of violating seven Verizon patents. On March 8, a federal jury returned a verdict finding that Vonage had violated [Verizon press release; Vonage press release] three voice-over-Internet Protocol patents held by Verizon, awarding Verizon $58 million dollars in compensation plus future royalties amounting to 5.5 percent of Vonage's revenues if Vonage continues to use the patented technology. Hilton, saying he did not wish to irreparably harm Vonage's business, issued the partial injunction as a less severe punishment than one he initially proposed, which would would have disrupted phone service for Vonage's 2.2 million existing customers. Vonage lawyers argued in response that the ruling would "slowly strangle" Vonage because it would be unable to compensate for customers that routinely switch services in the highly competitive industry. Vonage lawyers projected that the phone service would lose approximately 650,000 subscribers over the course of next year. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an emergency stay of the injunction.

Vonage customers overseas should not be affected by the Internet voice company’s recent legal troubles, according to a company spokesman.

“We don’t anticipate any changes or interruptions in phone service as a result of this litigation, so we advise customers to continue using their service as they always have,” said John Yocca, Vonage public relations manager, in a written response to a query from Stars and Stripes. “There are many options available to us and we are prepared to implement them as necessary.”

Rates for the Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, technologies that allow consumers to make calls over the Internet aren’t expected to change, either, he added.

Last week, a federal judge said he would issue an injunction barring Vonage Holdings Corp. from using Internet phone call technology patented by Verizon Communications Inc., but delayed signing the order for two weeks.

Vonage currently offers service in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom, but Yocca said customers can take their Vonage devices anywhere in the world where VoIP is legal and a high-speed cable connection is available.

Servicemembers arriving in South Korea before June 1 can continue using Vonage and other U.S. VoIP companies to make international phone calls. Those arriving in country after June 1 will be required to use a South Korean VoIP provider.

An Illinois jury sided with Merck & Co. Tuesday in the latest Vioxx litigation, holding that the painkiller was not the cause of the 2003 death of 52-year-old Patty Schwaller. Schwaller's husband claimed that Vioxx contributed to his wife's fatal heart attack and that Merck failed to adequately warn doctors and consumers about the increased risk of heart attack associated with the drug. A Madison County jury found, however, that Schwaller's collapse and sudden death may have been caused by risks associated with her weight and other health issues.

In early March, the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a separate jury verdict that found Merck adequately warned physicians of the risks associated with Vioxx. A week later, a New Jersey jury awarded a plaintiff $20 million and held that Vioxx caused the plaintiff's heart attack and, had the plaintiff's doctor known of the risks associated with Vioxx, he would not have prescribed it to the plaintiff. Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market [press release] in September 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit, ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin.