We posted earlier when the Second Circuit declared that class certification merits review was “in.” Well, we’re pleased to say that the Third Circuit just joined the party. In In re Hydrogen Peroxide Litigation, slip copy here, decided yesterday, the court “clarified” three areas of federal class action practice:
First, the decision to
We’re back again with our manifestly unoriginal, but still interesting, idea of top ten lists for the best and worst decisions in our niche for 2008. It’s a way of recapping our second full calendar year in the blogosphere. Sure, there’s a little bit of time left in 2008, but that isn’t stopping anybody else,
The Reed Smith Life Sciences Blog has an interesting post today about a proposed FDA regulation imposing special controls on a class II medical device (tissue expanders) that specifically states the Agency’s intent that those controls have preemptive effect. That, the RS blogger notes, is a first.
Like RS we wonder whether it’s necessary. Where
What better way to celebrate winter than with polar bears? The following guest post, written by Pearson Bownas of Jones Day, discusses the recent Polar Bears decision by the MDL Panel. This work is entirely Pearson’s; neither Beck nor Herrmann had anything to do with it:
The belief that polar bears cover their black
Materials have been distributed for the United States Supreme Court’s January 9, 2009, conference. Among the certiorari petitions that the Court will consider whether to accept are Colacicco (our posts here and here) and Farm Raised Salmon (our posts here, here, and here). Expect orders, up or down, within a business
As far back as the Bone Screw litigation, we’ve argued that many attempts to gin up litigation about alleged off-label promotion are really prohibited back-door attempts at private enforcement of FDCA violations. See Beck & Valentine, “Challenging The Viability Of FDCA-Based Causes Of Action In The Tort Context: The Orthopedic Bone Screw Experience,” 55 Food
We’re doing it again. We’ve prepared our top ten lists for 2008 – the top ten best, and the bottom ten worst drug and medical device product liability decisions of the year – our second full turn of the calendar in the blogosphere. You might think we’d start with the top ten, but that would
J.C. McElveen, of Jones Day, wrote the following guest post, for which we thank him. As is always true of guest posts, the two of us had nothing to do with what follows; JC gets all the credit. (We alone, however, are to blame for not knowing how to create subscripts in blog posts.
One of the questions we’ve been asking – but not finding answers – is where exactly do investigational medical devices (IDE) fit in to the preemption rubric after Riegel. Investigational devices, after all, are PMA, only their applications haven’t been approved yet. Since IDE devices are subject to the same regulations as PMA devices,
The two of us have been slaving over this blog, regularly producing substantive posts about cutting edge legal issues, for more than two years now.
And what do we get called out for (by name) over at Above the Law this morning?
The “bong water” case.
We’re speechless.