Archives: Product Liability

Subscribe to Product Liability RSS Feed

New Jersey’s DTC Advertising Exception to the Learned Intermediary Doctrine

This post was written by Andrew Stillufsen and Tsedey Bogale. When the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Wyeth Lab, Inc. that if pharmaceutical manufacturer directly markets to consumers, the learned intermediary doctrine does not apply, it was deemed a “revolutionary,” decision. However, since the ruling, every New Jersey court which has confronted … Continue Reading

Amarin Pharma v. FDA – More Briefs Filed Regarding Off-Label Promotion And The First Amendment

Our prior  posts  looked at the Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration lawsuit, which raises issues regarding the First Amendment and how it applies to speech by drug and device manufacturers regarding “off-label” uses.  We provided links to amicus briefs by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Washington … Continue Reading

FDA Files Brief Regarding Off-Label Promotion In Amarin Pharma Lawsuit

As we mentioned in our prior post, the Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York raises interesting issues regarding the First Amendment and how it applies to speech by drug and device manufacturers regarding “off-label” uses.  As we noted, on June 8, 2015, … Continue Reading

FDA Sued By Drug Manufacturer Over Constitutional Right To Discuss Off-Label Uses

This post was written by Evelien Verpeet The FDA has long sought to ban manufacturers from promoting off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices.  In taking the position that manufacturers and their agents cannot promote off-label uses, the FDA suggests they are safeguarding the public from misbranded medical products and ensuring that manufacturers do … Continue Reading

Texas Legislature Passes Two Bills Affecting Personal Injury And Wrongful Death Litigation

Two bills recently passed by the 84th Texas Legislature, HB 1692 and SB 735 have the potential to affect businesses at risk of personal injury and wrongful death litigation in Texas.  Intended to curb the practice of foreign plaintiffs filing claims in Texas courts for personal injuries occurring outside state borders, HB 1692 would change … Continue Reading

Proposed 21st Century Cures Act Addresses Off-Label Promotion Issues for Drugs and Devices

Over on the Health Industry Washington Watch blog, Reed Smith attorneys Katie Pawlitz and Jeremy Alexander highlight the proposed changes to the Sunshine Act contained within H.R. 6, the “21st Century Cures Act,” which (as previously reported on Life Sciences Legal Update) was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday, May 21, … Continue Reading

Insurance Coverage Considerations for Alleged Mislabeling of Herbal and Dietary Supplements

In the wake of the New York Attorney General's recent enforcement actions against four major retailers who allegedly sold herbal supplements that did not contain labeled ingredients or contained ingredients not explicitly identified on the labels, companies throughout the supply chain should consider examining their insurance policies to see whether or not they are sufficiently covered in the event of an investigation, enforcement action and/or litigation. Types of insurance policies that may provide coverage for affected companies are commercial general liability (CGL), directors and officers liability (D&O), errors and omissions liability (E&O), and product recall.… Continue Reading

3D Printing Raises Novel Questions About Potential Product Liability

Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck (aka "Bexis") offers his thoughts on the possible product liability implications of printing 3D medical devices. Specifically, Jim examines the question of what party (or parties) would be held liable as the manufacturer in a product liability case involving 3D printing. There are uncertainties surrounding each of the three primary parties who may be considered for liability: the hospital that owns the 3D printer used to produce medical devices; the manufacturer of the 3D printer; or the designer of the software used by the 3D printer to create the products. Jim's post discusses the current issues around naming each of those parties as the manufacturer, and concludes that - at least for the time being - 3D printing presents an unusual situation in which it is feasible that no entity qualifies as a "manufacturer" under the Restatements for strict liability. Additional legal issues like this will likely emerge as 3D printing's popularity continues to increase.… Continue Reading

A Call for Explicit Requirement of Ascertainability in Class Actions

Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck (aka “Bexis”) makes a case for adding an explicit ascertainability requirement to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Rule 23), presently under examination by the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for possible amendment. Bexis points out that many courts already (properly) impose … Continue Reading

Life Sciences and Health Care Industries Reap the Benefits of 3D Printing

This post was written by Colleen Davies and Lisa Baird. The past few years have seen 3D printing – a process that involves the creation of a three-dimensional object from a pre-conceived design – evolve from a futuristic idea into a multi-billion dollar business, and few industries have benefitted more from this technology than life … Continue Reading

A 50-State Survey of the Heeding Presumption

Over on the Drug & Device Law Blog, the bloggers have put together a survey of how each U.S. state (plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico) has addressed the concept of the heeding presumption, which posits that if the manufacturer of a product had given an alternative "adequate" warning of the potential effects of using the product, then the consumer or learned intermediary of such product would have obeyed the warning. As the survey demonstrates, the states' reaction to this legal theory ranges from full recognition to limited recognition to full rejection.… Continue Reading

Updates to Adverse Event Report Cheat Sheet on Drug & Device Law Blog

Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, the team maintains several scorecards and cheat sheets on product liability litigation topics relevant to pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers. Reed Smith associate Kevin Hara has updated the blog's adverse event report cheat sheet to include the most recent decisions from across the country addressing whether adverse event reports can be used as admissible evidence on the grounds of causation. In discussing this issue, Kevin advocates the legal principle that if a plaintiff cannot prove a particular product's capability of adverse event causation, the court should rule in favor of the defendent.… Continue Reading

Are You Sure Your Company Is “At Home” In All 50 States?

Reed Smith attorneys Jim Beck and Michelle Cheng explain in a recent Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder that the Supreme Court's decisions in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) have narrowed the permitted scope of "general" personal jurisdiction against corporations. As a result, corporate defendants might want to think twice before making a general appearance in new cases filed in states other than the states in which they have incorporated or have located their principal place of business.… Continue Reading

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Top 10 Best and Worst Prescription Drug and Medical Device Decisions of 2013

As they do every year, authors from the Drug and Device Law blog have published a list of the top 10 best and worst medical device and pharma decisions of the past year. In addition to their standard analysis, this year two of the Reed Smith authors, Eric Alexander and Jim Beck, will be hosting a teleseminar on Wednesday, January 8th at 12 p.m. ET to discuss the decisions in more detail. Information on how to register can be found at www.reedsmith.com/events.… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Decision on Reverse Payments has Significant Implications for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Reed Smith’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog recently featured a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, where the court ruled five-to-three that reverse payments, also called pay-for-delay settlements, can violate antitrust laws and are subject to antitrust review under the rule-of-reason. As reverse payments are commonly used by branded drug … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Decides Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

As reported on Drug and Device Law Blog, in a five-to-four decision by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court has decided Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142, slip op. (U.S. June 24, 2013), a generic drug preemption case out of the First Circuit where that court had permitted the plaintiffs to recover on a “design defect” … Continue Reading

New Jersey Appropriations Committee Approves Off-Label Drug Coverage Legislation

On March 7, 2013, the New Jersey Assembly Appropriations Committee approved legislation related to off-label drug coverage. Assembly bill A1830 would require health benefits plans offered to individuals and small employers, the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) and the School Employees' Health Benefits Program (SEHBP), to provide coverage for certain off-label uses for drugs that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The health plans would be required to provide coverage for off-label use of a drug if the drug is recognized as being medically appropriate for the specific treatment for which is has been prescribed in one of two established reference compendia (the American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information or the U.S. Pharmacopeia Drug Information), or if the drug is recommended by a clinical study or review article in a major peer-reviewed professional journal. According to bill sponsor Herb Conaway M.D., "the purpose of [the] bill is to extend the medical benefits that may derive from the use of off-label drugs to individuals who may not be able to access these medications. In particular those individuals who are suffering from a terminal or chronically debilitating illness, because their insurance carriers won't cover these drugs." The full text and status of the bill are available here.… Continue Reading
LexBlog