[This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.]
Today we report on Dickson v. Dexcom, Inc, 2024 WL 4291511 (W.D. La. 2024), an important medical-device preemption case that started with a doctrinal bang but ended on a factual whimper.
Committed to nationally uniform standards based on good science, we believe that
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the Blog.
Breaking new ground, a court has for the first time held that the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act expressly preempt product-liability claims implicating a Class II medical device brought to market through the “de novo” classification process. This is
Two years ago, in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 48 F.4th 1040 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit held that the FDCA impliedly preempts private suits brought under state statutes that “rel[y] on the [FDCA], not traditional state tort law theory,” to define state-law requirements. We were so pleased with
We have frequently reported on plaintiffs’ efforts to salvage untimely claims in the Taxotere MDL. See, for example, here, here, and here. As we explained here, the basic problem for many plaintiffs—who claim that the chemotherapy drug Taxotere caused them permanent hair loss—is how the MDL master complaint defines the plaintiffs’
The legal doctrine we discuss today, the reporter’s privilege, lies outside our traditional bailiwick but is worth a quick visit. Recognized in most states, the reporter’s privilege—also known as the journalist’s or newsman’s privilege—is an absolute or conditional “protection, under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources.” Black’s
This post is solely from the non-Reed Smith side of the Blog.
A court within the Fifth Circuit has held that the FDCA impliedly preempts unfair-competition and consumer-protection claims asserted by a drug manufacturer against a compounding pharmacy. Despite generally rooting for drug manufacturers, we are okay with the decision, Zyla Life Scis., LLC v.
As we recently noted when discussing snap removals, corporate defendants sued by individuals are generally at a disadvantage when forced to litigate in state rather than federal court. We know this and plaintiffs know this. It is why plaintiffs commonly file suit in state court, why corporate defendants typically remove cases to federal court
[This post is not from the Reed Smith side of the blog.]
Litigation is a game. It is a game with real stakes and broad implications, but it is nonetheless a game played according to certain rules. As in all games, the participants—plaintiffs and defendants alike—try to maximize their advantage within those rules.
In litigation
As defense attorneys who represent drug and device companies, we generally cheer when a state-law claim is held preempted by the FDCA. We are, however, not sure whether to cheer the decision we discuss today, Thogus Products Co. v. Bleep, LLC, 2023 WL 5607458 (N.D. Ohio 2023).
Thogus involved a contract dispute between a
Today’s case, Ganz v. Grifols Therapeutics LLC, 2023 WL 5437356 (S.D. Fla. 2023), involves a biologic but also speaks to drugs and medical devices. The mixed decision dismisses design-defect and failure-to warn claims but allows manufacturing-defect and failure-to-recall claims to proceed. Although we’ll briefly summarize those rulings, the decision is more interesting for noting