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 sciences and health care. 3D printing has been used to … Continue Reading
The Drug & Device Law blog features a post by Reed Smith partner Steven Boranian in which Steven examines the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which involved removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).… Continue Reading
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
Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck applauds the recent decision in Tyree v. Boston Scientific Corp., a case filed in the Southern District of West Virginia. Tyree manages to narrow the scope of the 2007 decision in State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, in which the … Continue Reading
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
Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Eric Alexander calls attention to Booker v. Johnson & Johnson, 2014 WL 5113305 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2014), a recent decision from the Ortho Evra multi-district litigation (MDL) extending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S.Ct. 2466 (2013) … Continue Reading
Applying the legal concept of attorney-client privilege can be tricky when the communications in question are between a client and an outside media consultancy hired to advise on issues related to forthcoming litigation. This issue is made particularly complicated by the scarcity of existing legal precedent.… Continue Reading
The Drug & Device Law blog recently posted an analysis of an interesting case, United States ex rel. Solis v. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., that takes an issue the government has fought in the past – off-label promotion – and attempts to provide a link between it and the false claims issues that relators bring under … Continue Reading
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
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
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
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
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
Over at the Drug and Device Law Blog, there are several posts analyzing the meaning of the Second Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149, 160 (2d Cir. 2012), including this one and this one. Most Caronia commentary has focused on the court’s First Amendment holding, that the FDCA does not ban … Continue Reading
There seems to be growing awareness that engaging in a "business, trade, or profession," can easily subject any person or entity to what is known as the Medicare secondary payer ("MSP") law--a series of provisions in Title XVIII the Social Security Act, governing the hierarchy of who pays first among applicable insurers. Given its scope and complexity, understanding and complying with the MSP law can be overwhelming. Further, although failure to comply carries obvious risk, conforming to what the law requires may also trigger certain risks of its own.… Continue Reading
President Obama recently signed the Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act (commonly referred to as the SMART Act) to alleviate some of the confusion surrounding the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP), which allows Medicare to seek reimbursement, and potential penalties, from "responsible" parties. These "responsible" parties include tort defendants, such as drug and medical device manufacturers, who become primary payers once they settle or have a judgment awarded against them in a case involving a Medicare beneficiary. The SMART Act will, among other things, introduce a three-year statute of limitations for which the government may bring an action for reimbursement and create a minimum settlement/judgment threshold below which the government will not seek reimbursement.… Continue Reading
This post was written by Paul E. Breene, Douglas E. Cameron, James M. Davis, John N. Ellison, Ann V. Kramer, Richard P. Lewis, Matthew J. Schlesinger, John D. Shugrue and Gary S. Thompson. Hurricane Sandy left a swath of major damage and destruction over a large area of the Northeastern United States. Commercial policyholders will … Continue Reading
InsideCounsel recently published, "E-discovery: The need for a transnational approach to cross-border discovery disputes," an article on international discovery issues and the benefit of a respectful approach to document productions outside of the U.S. Written by Reed Smith Records & E-Discovery Group members David R. Cohen, Regis W. Stafford, Jr. and Caitlin R. Gifford, the piece notes that proposed EU Data Protection Directive regulations have the potential to subject multinational companies to sanctions of up to two percent of annual worldwide revenue for serious breaches, including unlawful data transfers to the U.S. In addition, although not binding on U.S. courts, the ABA recently issued a resolution and recommendation that states in part that U.S. courts should "consider and respect the data protection and privacy laws of any foreign sovereign..." This article underscores the importance of a comprehensive global approach to document production in cross-border litigation.… Continue Reading
Law360 today has an interesting Q&A with Canadian attorney Jill Lawrie of Blakes (subscription required), who provides good insights and opinions about Canadian class actions and the "waiver of tort" concept in Canada, whereby plaintiffs look to recover disgorgement of revenues instead of tort damages.… Continue Reading
Recent posts on www.lifescienceslegalupdate.com include:
"Supreme Court Rules That Juries - Not Judges - Must Determine Facts Supporting Large Criminal Fines"
The Reed Smith Global Regulatory Enforcement Law blog has an interesting post about a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants in high-stakes criminal cases. In Southern Union Co. v. United States, the Court ruled that any fact supporting a "substantial" criminal fine must be found by a jury applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In this post, Efrem M. Grail and Kyle R. Bahr explain the opinion and discuss the wide impact it will have on criminal actions, from investigation to sentencing.
View the entire entry:
"Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing - June 2012 (July 20, 2012)"
Reed Smith's Life Sciences Health Industry China Briefing provides a summary of the monthly news and legal developments relating to China's Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Life Sciences/ Health Care Industries.… Continue Reading
Last week, the Sixth Circuit ruled largely in favor of Stryker Corporation in its effort to secure insurance coverage from XL Insurance America. Since 2001, Stryker has been battling XL for reimbursement of its defense and indemnity costs arising from sales of expired Uni-Knees, an artificial knee medical device. Stryker had accidentally permitted sales of the expired products from its warehouse until it discovered the error.… Continue Reading
This post was also written by Ruth N. Holzman and Angelo Ciavarella. Yesterday the House approved by a vote of 270-146 legislation to repeal the ACA’s controversial 2.3% excise tax on the sale price of certain medical devices, which is scheduled to apply to sales after December 31, 2012. The repeal provision is included in H.R. 436, the … Continue Reading
The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Third Edition has recently been released by the National Academies Press. This work is a substantial update to the prior version, which was first published in 2000, and is intended as a guide to the federal judiciary in assessing complex scientific, economic and engineering issues.… Continue Reading
In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court yesterday decided the issue of whether tortuously injured plaintiffs with private health insurance get to recover the full rate charged by their doctors and hospitals or the discounted, contract rate their insurers actually pay.
The standard, the California Supreme Court held in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, is that personally injured plaintiffs may recover, at most, the dollar amount that actually is paid by their insurers for plaintiffs' medical services, not the larger amount that generally is billed to those not covered by negotiated contracts between insurance companies and medical providers.… Continue Reading