Although as of yet the data has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the necessary administrative and scientific scrutiny, there has been considerable recent good news regarding the efficacy of two COVID-19 vaccines, being developed by Pfizer and Moderna, respectively.
It is now more likely than ever that within a few months the
When we last reviewed the general state of First Amendment jurisprudence, we concluded that on the United States Supreme Court there was “a slim, but solid, First Amendment majority.” Our basis for that conclusion was last term’s decision in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020),
In 2020, many things are the same, yet different, and industry conferences are just one example. As in-person events (or in-person anything, for that matter) have been relegated to the sidelines, we have seen the emergence of the virtual conference, which replicates most aspects of the in-person conference, with the added benefit that there is
Earlier this year we discussed the application of Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), to a variety of private litigation that sought to second-guess the FDA’s drug or medical device classification decisions. Then we followed up with what we described as a “doozy” of a case along the same lines,
The decision in In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, 969 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Booker”), is yet another reminder that multidistrict litigation as it is currently conducted is a fundamentally flawed process, dedicated more to forcing settlements than to any of the goals envisioned by Congress when it passed
It’s not unusual for us to disagree with a decision from a state’s highest court. Indeed, we did so vehemently not long ago with a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But even when we disagree, we rarely encounter decisions that make us cringe as much as Russell v. Johnson & Johnson, ___ S.W.3d
The hip implant litigation, Rouviere v. DePuy, has already given us one of the classic opinions on the COVID-19 “new normal” in litigation practices. See Rouviere v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2020 WL 3967665 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2020) (blogged about here). That decision was prompted largely by the plaintiff’s
Back in 2018, upon reading the bad general jurisdiction by consent decision, Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, 192 A.3d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2018), and the worse Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2018), “specific” (we use that term advisedly) jurisdiction case a few months later, we commented that
For our loyal readers mourning a missed, or modified, Halloween, Reed Smith has a treat to offer: a series of complimentary, life sciences-focused CLE webinars running from November 9 to 13 as a virtual “Life Sciences CLE Week.” (See below for information on jurisdictions in which credit is offered.) Reed Smith typically offers this program
In a significant, albeit unpublished, decision, an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania has ruled that there is no recognized Pennsylvania common-law “duty” for prescription medical product manufacturers to send Dear Healthcare Provider (“DHCP”, a/k/a “Dear Doctor”) letters about label changes. Zitney v. Wyeth LLC, 2020 WL 6129173 (Pa. Super. Oct. 19, 2020).
Zitney arose