Supreme Court justices on Tuesday sharply questioned a lower court's decision that has prohibited biotech giant Monsanto Co. from selling genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, possibly paving the way for the company to distribute the seeds for the first time since 2007.

The case has been closely watched by environmentalists and agribusiness. A federal judge in San Francisco barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.

St. Louis-based Monsanto is arguing that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.

Organic groups and farmers exporting to Europe, where genetically modified crops are unpopular, have staunchly opposed the development of such seeds.

Environmentalists are concerned with the case's effect on a federal law that requires the government to review a product's effect on the environment before approving it. The U.S. Agriculture Department earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.

The Supreme Court says investors who lost millions when Merck & Co. pulled its blockbuster drug Vioxx off the market can go ahead with a lawsuit against the pharmaceutical giant.

The high court on Tuesday agreed with a federal appeals court's decision to allow a class-action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit was related to the tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value lost overnight after Merck pulled Vioxx off the market.

A U.S. district court ruled against specialty pharmaceutical company Santarus Inc in its patent suit against Par Pharmaceuticals, sending Santarus shares tumbling 48 percent after the bell.

The suit filed by Santarus and co-plaintiff University of Missouri relates to Par's application to market a generic version of Santarus' heartburn drug, Zegerid.

The court ruled that the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness. It also concluded that certain asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.

The case is Santarus Inc et al v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. No. 07-551.

The three-judge panel Tuesday ordered the secretary of state to accept the group's petition seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. That allows the tea party activists to begin collecting the 1.3 million voter signatures they need to get a recall on the ballot.

The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker.

New Jersey is among 18 states that allow recalls of statewide elected officials. There is no right to recall congressmen and senators under the U.S. Constitution.

The court says it would take up that question if the petition drive succeeds.

Lawyers for Merck & Co. told the Supreme Court Monday that investors waited too late and didn't do all of the necessary investigations to sue the drug maker over whether it properly warned about the risks of its blockbuster painkiller Vioxx.

Whether the high court agrees with the drug maker will help clarify the legal standards for determining exactly when the clock starts running for the two-year window to sue a company accused of defrauding investors.

Merck wants the high court to overturn a decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will let proceed a class-action securities lawsuit related to the tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value lost overnight after Merck pulled Vioxx off the market.

The Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based company withdrew the drug from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled the risks of heart attack, stroke and death.

Investors had accused Merck of providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. After a widely publicized study comparing Vioxx to naproxen, another pain reliever, found about five times more heart attacks in the patient group taking Vioxx, Merck officials argued repeatedly that was because naproxen protected the heart.

Hwang, once a scientist with rock-star like status in South Korea for his research that brought the country to the forefront of stem cell studies, is facing trial on charges of fraud, misusing 2.8 billion won ($2.25 million) in state funds and violating bioethics laws.

Prosecutors said Hwang brought shame to the country and harm to scientific research in South Korea.

"The disappointment felt by the (Korean) people is enormous," one of the team of prosecutors told the court.

Hwang, who has apologized for fraud in his team's work, has denied any wrongdoing and said he was duped by junior researchers into believing the landmark results

Lee Bong-gu, a lawyer for Hwang, said: "These people, including the prosecutors are trying to tear apart Hwang's precious scientific evidence."

The U.S. Supreme Court said yesterday that it would hear an appeal by Merck & Co. Inc. seeking to block a shareholders' lawsuit over its withdrawn pain reliever Vioxx.

A federal appeals court ruling in Philadelphia reinstated the class-action securities lawsuit in 2008 after a U.S. district judge in New Jersey dismissed it on grounds that the claims had been filed too late under statutes of limitations.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments during its term that begins in October.

Merck, which employs about 12,000 people in the Philadelphia area, contends that investors waited more than two years to sue after the first warnings that Vioxx might be unsafe.

The investors' suit is unrelated to the $4.85 billion Merck agreed to pay in November 2007 to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their survivors over Vioxx.

To date, more than 48,000 plaintiffs have filed claims relating to injuries or economic loss under the settlement.