The latest medical device express preemption decision, Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70645, 2026 WL 880370 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026), comes out of the Southern District of New York and involves a Class III, PMA‑approved cochlear implant.
Fluid allegedly worked its way into the device and caused a short‑circuit and device
It must be bad plaintiff lawyer week here at the Drug and Device Law Blog. Yesterday, we brought you a review of The Pain Brokers (One Signal Publishers 2026) and the sordid tale of ginned-up damages in the vaginal mesh litigation.
Today we bring you The American Tort Reform Association’s 2026 report, The Junk
Here in the United States, Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) encourages lawyers to Ask About TPLF, also known as third party litigation funding.
LCJ and others are advocating for an addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would require litigants to disclose the involvement of litigation funders in cases, just like
December 9, 2026? What is that about?
Well, December 9, 2026 is the deadline for each member nation within the European Union to have incorporated the EU’s new Product Liability Directive (“PLD”) into their own national laws. In key markets like Germany, that work is well underway.
Not every EU member state will meet
Yesterday we did our annual best of/worst of CLE, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Best and Worst Drug/Medical Device and Vaccine Decisions of 2025”. It was good fun for us presenters and hopefully at least mildly educational and entertaining for the audience. (If you missed it, the video replay will be available
There are two main issues that make the eyes of your dutiful Drug and Device Law bloggers well up in frustration over In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Eye Inj. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3023, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233514, 2025 WL 3442731 (E.D. La. Dec. 1, 2025).
The first is a gut-level, “this is an
We have been mulling over Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) and federal preemption.
Yes, we need a life, but let’s put that aside for the moment.
In particular, we’ve been reviewing a rash of complaints where plaintiffs contend that the FDA’s decisions about whether to grant or deny premarket approval
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
As defense lawyers, we have dealt many a time with plaintiffs’ attorneys who get away with just about everything. Failing to appear for hearings. Failing to oppose motions. Ignoring court orders. Ignoring discovery requests.
When unjustified, such acts of neglect should not be excused, but they often are. Courts are predisposed to decide cases on