3D Printing has been a hot subject on this blog lately. From our first 3D Printing white paper, “3D Printing of Medical Devices: When a Novel Technology Meets Traditional Legal Principles” to our posts here, here and here. Our friends over at the Drug and Device Law blog are no stranger to the subject either. Most recently, guest blogger Matt Jacobson discussed how the learned intermediary doctrine was the focus once again in a recent case, but this time, the product involved was a 3D printed “device.” In this case, a plaintiff who wore Align’s 3D printed Invisalign braces claimed that “Align falsely advertised, misled and deceived her and other consumers into believing that the Invisalign aligners could treat their malocclusions.” As regular readers of this blog and DDLB will know, the learned intermediary doctrine holds that “in the case of prescription drugs, the duty to warn runs to the physician, not to the patient.” As a result, the learned intermediary doctrine barred plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they were based on failure to warn, because the complaint did not allege that Align had failed to warn plaintiff’s dentist.
To find out more about the case, read the blog post here.