Long ago, it seemed that large-scale drug or device litigation was usually spurred on by a recall, market withdrawal, or major labeling change describing a new risk or limiting the scope of product use. The plaintiff lawyers these days seem to be more willing to put their energy into attacking currently marketed products without triggering
Second Circuit Disappoints With Big Reversal
As we have said before, the Blog is unabashedly pro-science. There is a difference between good science and bad science, and reliance on the latter to make any important decision—be it in everyday life, litigation, or public policy—is not smart. We are also unabashedly in favor of strict application of the Rules of Evidence
An Ultra Processed Complaint Fails
This post comes from the non-RS and non-Dechert side of the Blog.
The great post-modern existentialist philosopher John Madden once said, “If you have two quarterbacks, you actually have no quarterback.” This was not the result of a fanciful math equation where you (impermissibly) divide by zero. In American football, except on rare trick plays
Not Everyone Can Hop On A Bandwagon: Product Identification Still Matters
Like many, many people around the world, we have spent a good chunk of the last two weeks following the World Cup. Not just the U.S. team or even the clips of first-time visitors to the U.S. reveling in its regional cuisine and cultural quirks. We have found ourselves watching intently as teams from two
Removing Common Sense From Removals Sua Sponte
We rarely get riled up about a decision related to removals and remands. A rejection of snap removal or a misapplication of Ruhrgas might quicken our nerdy pulses, but not engender our sense of outrage like many, many other things we have posted about through the years. However, we read a decision where a veteran
Pleading Around Obvious Defenses
The now well-known requirement from the TwIqbal cases that a complaint contains factual allegations that establish that relief is plausible derives from Rule 8(a)(2) requirement that each pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” One recurring point of contention in drug and device litigation
A Device That Uses Magnetic Levitation Sounds Pretty Innovative To Us
This post is from the non-RS side of the Blog.
Consider the following scenario. A fifty-two-year-old woman has end-stage left ventricular heart failure despite medical care and the latest medications. Her prospects for a heart transplant or the implantation of a left-ventricular assist device to prolong her life are limited, including by financial considerations. She
Guest Post — Federal Officer Removal: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms that a Statute’s “Ordinary Meaning” Can Be Exceptionally Broad
Today’s guest post from Justin Kadoura, a Holland & Knight product liability and toxic tort litigator, concerns a Supreme Court decision on an issue that might seem unrelated to the sort of case we cover at the DDL Blog. However, federal officer removal does come up in our cases and we have covered it
Supreme Court Rejects Preemption: Does It Matter For Drug And Device Cases?
No, not that case. The appeal of the FIFRA preemption rulings in glyphosate litigation is still pending. This decision is Hencely v. Fluor Corp., No. 24-924, 2026 U.S. Lexis 1868 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2026), which involves the preemption of negligence claims against a military contractor in connection with a terrorist attack on the Bagram
When Admonishing Does No Deterring It May Be Time To Retool
We typed the following question into a simple AI prompt: “What is the difference between admonish and deter?” The response started with “The primary difference between admonish and deter lies in their intent and timing: admonishing is form of active, often verbal correction or warning regarding past or present behavior, while deterring is an act