We’re pleased to report that the ABA Journal has once again chosen our humble Drug and Device Law Blog as one of the “top 100” legal blogs of the year.
Here’s a link to the cover story of the Journal that announces the list.
We are again flattered by the company that we’re keeping.
As we told you this morning, we were invited to participate in a debate hosted by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review’s online supplement, PENNumbra.
The debate is about whether Congress should act to overrule the pleading standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal.
We think not; Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania
We were recently invited to participate in an online debate with Professor Stephen Burbank (Univeristy of Pennsylvania) about whether Congress should act to overrule the pleading standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). (Yeah, yeah: We had
There’s life in generic preemption yet. The court in Gaeta v. Perringo Pharmaceuticals, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2009), has denied reconsideration of the preemption summary judgment entered last year pre-Levine. The court holds that Levine‘s impossibility analysis did not consider the FDCA’s requirement that generic labeling be the “same” as
In multidistrict litigation, the MDL transferee judge typically appoints a plaintiffs steering committee to manage the litigation for all plaintiffs. And the lawyers on that committee often say that the cost of work done for the “common benefit” of all plaintiffs should be borne by all plaintiffs, not just the clients of the lawyers on
The Eighth Circuit gave brand name drug manufacturers cause to give thanks yesterday, but for generics, is was Black Friday. In Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 08-3850, slip op. (8th Cir. Nov. 27, 2009), the court answered two questions: (1) can a brand name manufacturer be liable for an alleged inadequate warning on a
We’re delighted that many of our readers are, like us, Luddites.
We know that some of you folks don’t understand the meaning of complicated words like “RSS feed,” “gigabyte,” and “computer.”
So we’re betting that a few of you aren’t yet aware that Google announced last week that Google Scholar now makes available on-line, and
Yesterday we mentioned that Merck had won summary judgment in a consumer protection-type suit brought by the Texas Attorney General concerning Vioxx. We hoped for an “interesting opinion.” Well, check that. We’ve now seen the order – and that’s all there is (at least for now) – an order. Here it is, but it
Bexis can’t say much anyway, since his firm’s involved in Vioxx, and neither of us have seen the opinion, but Merck announced today that it was granted summary judgment today in the Texas state AG consumer protection litigation. Here’s a link to Merck’s press release. When we get a copy of what promises to
Professor Ben Zipursky (Fordham) just published a guest post over at Torts Prof Blog ruminating about why the Supreme Court found preemption in the context of medical devices that had undergone premarket approval in Riegel v. Medtronic, but did not find preemption in the context of prescription drugs on the facts of Wyeth v. Levine.