We reported two years ago on a Third Circuit opinion holding that the federal government did not have the authority to require drug manufacturers to deliver 340B-discounted drugs to an unlimited number of pharmacies. The D.C. Circuit came to the same conclusion a year later. See Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC v. HHS, 58 F.4th
Is it really an opposition to a motion to compel if the brief does not bemoan the plaintiff’s discovery “fishing expedition”?
We don’t think so. A license to practice law seems to mandate that the holder must use the fishing expedition metaphor whenever discovery is the topic. As a result, we were a little amused
It feels like 20 years ago when we were doing almost monthly fen-phen diet drug trials in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The old timey-air-conditioning units in City Hall, along with subways rumbling underfoot, occasionally drowned out the testimony of plaintiff experts taking both scientific studies and internal company documents out of context. That
We have seen a recent plague of purported class actions against various FDA-regulated OTC products that include allegations of contamination (usually benzene) that are purportedly supported by “independent laboratory” testing. Fortunately, we have also seen these cases dismissed one after another for a variety of reasons, including lack of standing. Today’s case is a great
Not long ago we discussed Somerlot v. Jung, ___ A.3d ___, 2025 WL 2157391 (Pa. Super. July 30, 2025), as providing a potential antidote to some Mallory-inspired forum shopping. However, as we pointed out, Somerlot’s advantages were limited, because: (1) they required the pro-active use of forum selection clauses in advance of any litigation, and (2) would only be available to defendants who had the sort of relationship (directly or through distributors or doctors) with a plaintiff that would provide the opportunity to require such a clause. Thus, the Somerlot solution was not available to all, or even most, prescription medical product liability litigation.
However, over the last couple of months, Pennsylvania appellate decisions involving the more traditional concepts of forum non conveniens and venue have materially changed applicable law for the better, in terms of their availability as tools to combat post-Mallory forum shopping. Since Pennsylvania remains the only large state to allow general jurisdiction by consent in prescription medical product liability litigation, Pennsylvania law remains by far the most important for dealing with post-Mallory forum shopping.Continue Reading Recent Pennsylvania Appellate Decisions Can Combat Post-Mallory Forum Shopping
If you’re an in-house counsel working in the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, or digital health space (and still looking to complete CLE hours before year-end) we invite you to join Reed Smith’s annual Virtual Life Sciences CLE Week, taking place November 3–7, 2025.
This week-long event will feature a series of live webinars
We previously blogged about the bogus “scientific” articles in the cosmetic talcum powder litigation and the defendant’s relentless efforts to expose the likely fraud. Prior posts are here, here and here. If you do not recall the ongoing saga, here’s the quick refresher. Plaintiffs’ paid experts in the talc litigation published two articles that purported to study groups of individuals whose only potential asbestos exposures involved talcum powder. Those “studies” were based on plaintiffs in litigation where the authors served as experts. The defendant discovered that several of the subjects in the articles were plaintiffs in ongoing cases, and the defendant knew from those cases that certain subjects had numerous, potential exposures to asbestos other than talcum powder—thus undercutting the entire foundation of the articles. The defendant aggressively sought discovery about the study subjects’ identities and filed trade libel lawsuits against the authors.
Today’s decision, Moline v. Pecos River Talc LLC, 2025 WL 2898086 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025), involves a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Dr. Jacqueline Moline (who authored one of the papers) by Pecos River in the trade libel lawsuit brought against the other authors, Pecos River Talc LLC v. Emory et al., No. 4:24-cv-75 (E.D. Va.) (Pecos River was the entity created as part of Johnson & Johnson’s effort to resolve the talc-related claims through bankruptcy). We’ll call the defendants in that case the Emory defendants.Continue Reading Plaintiff Talc Expert Must Give Deposition Testimony in Trade Libel Lawsuit
We start with some disclaimers. Not the usual disclaimers about which of the Blog authors’ respective firms deny responsibility for the post. We disclaim that we care much about the availability of cigarettes and vaping products, except insofar as litigation over them says something about litigation over medical products and the general interplay between state
Today’s case, Hartney v. Zoetis, Inc., 2025 WL 2924661 (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2025), is about a canine medicine allegedly gone wrong. But lest you think the DDL blog has gone to the dogs, this case addresses issues such as preemption and learned intermediary that are key in cases with thumbed, supposedly sapient, biped plaintiffs.
Mind you