Last month, Lindsey provided readers of the Drug and Device Law blog with an overview of United Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, a False Claims Act (FCA) case that was bringing the implied certification theory of FCA liability before the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The FCA imposes liability on anyone who knowingly … Continue Reading
On December 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7, raising the question of whether “implied certification” liability is permissible under the False Claims Act and, if so, under what circumstances. Under the implied certification theory, defendants are presumed to have certified that they … Continue Reading
Last year, the Supreme Court sent a resounding message regarding personal jurisdiction when it decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 752 (2014). Bauman announced a significantly more stringent standard for finding a corporation to be “essentially at home” in a foreign jurisdiction and, as a result, made personal jurisdiction harder to establish in … Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the Alameda County Drug Disposal Ordinance (“Ordinance”) brought by three pharmaceutical trade organizations. The Court’s decision leaves in force the Ninth Circuit decision, which found that the Ordinance, requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to fund drug take-back programs in the county, did not interfere with … Continue Reading
On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel Carter, No. 12-1497, __ S. Ct. __ (2015), in which a relator brought civil False Claims Act (FCA) claims against government contractors. The relator alleged that the contractors had made fraudulent payment claims … Continue Reading
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) have jointly filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in PhRMA v. County of Alameda, in which the court ruled that Alameda County's Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance - requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to establish or participate in a program for collecting unwanted prescription drugs from consumers - was constitutional.… 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
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
On October 7, 2013, in evaluating a pending cert petition, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Office of Solicitor General to provide its views regarding the level of specificity required when alleging activities in violation of the civil False Claims Act (FCA) (United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, No. 12-1349, order 10/7/13).… 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
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 … Continue Reading
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions clarifying the criteria that must be satisfied before a court may constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant--J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. Both decisions involved product liability suits asserted against non-U.S. manufacturers, but both have relevance as well for domestic corporations defending lawsuits under any liability theory. The decisions were highly anticipated because the cases, J. McIntyre in particular, were expected to resolve a decades-old debate about the contours of the so-called "stream of commerce" theory of personal jurisdiction. The Court delivered.… Continue Reading
This post was written by Christopher C. Foster. As many of you no doubt have heard, the United States Supreme Court last week decided that FDA regulations applicable to generic drug manufacturers preempt state law “failure to warn” claims in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, Nos. 09–993, 09–1039, and 09–1501, 564 U.S. ___ (2011). Among other … Continue Reading
Today, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a verdict in Sorrell vs. IMS Health, striking, on free speech grounds, a 2007 Vermont law that that bans the practice of data mining unless a physician specifically gives his or her permission to use the information. Reed Smith filed an amicus brief in … Continue Reading
