It’s opening day here in NYC. The Nationals are in town to play the Mets. And the sun is supposed to emerge just before game time. A perfect day. In fact, as all ragged and abused Mets fans know, opening day is the highlight of the year. And it’s generally downhill from there. But on
The defendant in Parkinson v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 3:12-cv-02089, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36677 (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2014), won summary judgment on warnings causation because the alleged inadequacy in the drug warnings didn’t make a lick of a difference. That is the right result and is why we think warnings causation is
If you even dally in one or more of the most popular social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, instagram), then you’ve probably heard about Throwback Thursday — or if you are super cool, #tbt. Nobody is exactly sure when it started, but by 2013 it was thoroughly ensconced in our social media habits. Purportedly there are somewhere around 23 million pictures tagged #throwbackthursday on Twitter alone.
What is Throwback Thursday? Some say it’s an excuse to post your most angelic baby picture or a photo of yourself from anytime in the past when you were thinner than you are now. Or, perhaps post an embarrassing old photo of a friend. All are legitimate throwbacks. The only real requirement seems to be a picture so old you actually had to snap a photo of a physical picture to be able to post it. So, that means you probably need to reach back at least 5 years.
Well, this post reaches back almost 20 years for some of us (Bexis and Yeary). A time when not only were photos in hard copy, but so were our filings. Mad dashes to the courthouse to beat the 4:00 pm closing rather than hitting the submit button at 11:59 pm. Making dozens of copies to serve on all the parties rather than sending a pdf by email. Ahh, the feel of warm pages fresh off the printer and the frenzy of cab rides to the airport to make the last Federal Express flight of the night. Sweet memories.Continue Reading It’s Throwback Thursday
Last week brought another example of the chaos being caused in preemption jurisprudence by the Supreme Court’s sloppily reasoned decision in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). Prior to Levine, the Court had repeatedly held that the doctrines of express (that is, where there’s an on-point statutory provision) preemption and implied (where
Last July we discussed a rare event, a preemption win for an innovator drug under the Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), “clear evidence” standard. However, that case, In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 951 F. Supp.2d 695 (D.N.J. June 27, 2013), occurred in the peculiar context of a preemption motion granted
Time travel is on our mind today. We should hasten to add that it is not a topic that usually absorbs us – otherwise we might squander what little credibility we have with our serious-minded readers. But a trio of things prompted us to think about time-travel. First, we will (soon, we promise) be discussing
This post discusses an Infuse case and therefore, is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog only.
“Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?” Those are the last words uttered by the gangster in Little Caesar. That villain was played by Edward G. Robinson, who became well-known for playing tough-talking hoodlums,
In Bertini v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35837 (E .D.N.Y. March 17, 2014), the Eastern District of New York applied preemption to a device case that involved off-label use, even though the device didn’t receive FDA Pre-Market Approval (“PMA”) and wasn’t really used off-label. Confusing? Maybe. But once untangled, it’s
We do this blog not just to tout good results, slam bad decisions, and relay our likes and dislikes on various subjects, but to provide information that can help drug and device manufacturer defendants get better results in the litigations they face. We do not presume, except facetiously, that our posts really do move the
We are still trying to get our hands on the opinion [update – here it is], but we understand that the $1.2 billion verdict for the State of Arkansas over marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal has been reversed. We told you in our summary of the top cases of 2013 that we were