Photo of Bexis

JAMES M. BECK is Reed Smith's only Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst, resident in the firm's Philadelphia office. He is the author of, among other things, Drug and Medical Device Product Liability Handbook (2004) (with Anthony Vale). He wrote the seminal law review article on off-label use cited by the Supreme Court in Buckman v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee. He has written more amicus briefs for the Product Liability Advisory Council than anyone else in the history of the organization, and in 2011 won PLAC's highest honor, the John P. Raleigh award. He has been a member of the American Law Institute (ALI) since 2005. He is the long-time editor of the newsletter of the ABA's Mass Torts Committee.  He is vice chair of the Class Actions and Multi-Plaintiff Litigation SLG of DRI's Drug and Device Committee.  He can be reached at jmbeck@reedsmith.com.  His LinkedIn page is here.

Now we’ve read it, and before we go off to celebrate (and maybe to look for new jobs as IP lawyers – that’s a joke, folks), we thought we’d tell our readers why that’s exactly what we’re doing.
The 7-1 Riegel decision definitively demolishes a lot of the arguments we’ve been seeing for years (if

We’ve just received a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. Here’s a copy. We haven’t even read it all yet, but it’s looking like a big win for preemption. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for 7 Justices. Justice Stevens concurred and Justice Ginsburg dissented. The PMA process sets “requirements” within

One panel at the Tulane MDL Symposium consisted of the triumvirate of Judges Mark Davidson, Carol Higbee, and Janis Jack.
Judge Davidson handles the Texas statewide asbestos proceedings; his was an interesting talk, but this blog doesn’t worry too much about asbestos. We learned two things of broader interest that we’ll share.
First, the chair

One of us just returned from the Tulane Law Review’s symposium on “The Problem of Multidistrict Litigation.” The Review did itself proud, with an impressive group of speakers presenting to a large crowd. We’re now flipping through our notes to see what’s worth reporting.
Since the symposium focused on multidistrict litigation, we’ll start with the

There must be some problem with our comment function, because we received an email from a reader that the comment quoted below wouldn’t post. We apologize for that, but (being Luddites) all we know how to do is put it up as a post. Here’s the comment:

Wouldn’t such a request be objectionable and properly

Defendants ordinarily hate e-discovery – that is, the discovery of electronically stored information. It’s horrendously expensive (courts almost always stick defendants with the lion’s share of the cost), the amount of data involved in big cases can be overwhelming, and there are so many nooks and crannies that it’s terribly easy to screw it up.

We’ve been thinking again about the American Law Institute’s “Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation,” in part because we’ll be asked to vote on whether to accept the draft at the ALI’s annual meeting in May.

The draft is long and says many things.

One thing that it says, however, is this:

To facilitate

Professor Rachael Mulheron, a law professor at Queen Mary University of London, has prepared a long research paper for the Civil Justice Council assessing the need to reform the “collective redress” tools available under English law.
The paper concludes that the U.K. should make certain reforms, but that it should not adopt American-style class action