We observed arguments last week in the California Supreme Court in Gilead Tenofovir Cases, and quality advocates on both sides put on a great performance. As we previewed last week, the case presents a question with potentially sweeping consequences for product liability law: Does a pharmaceutical manufacturer owe a duty of reasonable care
The “Duty to Innovate” Arrives at the California Supreme Court: Oral Argument Set for May 6, 2026
After nearly three years of litigation winding through California’s appellate courts, the closely watched Gilead Tenofovir Cases is finally set for oral argument before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco. The case presents a question with potentially sweeping consequences for product liability law: Does a pharmaceutical
Next Stop SCOTUS? Fourth Circuit Creates Split On 340B Contract Pharmacies
Can states compel prescription drug manufacturers to deliver steeply discounted medicines to unlimited numbers of pharmacies? That is the issue that has been kicking around federal courts for a few years now, and the Fourth Circuit has now weighed in by answering “no.”
We are talking here about drugs purchased under the federal government’s 340B
Nevada Learned Intermediary Doctrine Is Best In Show
Nevada courts have long applied the learned intermediary rule to pharmacists filling prescriptions, and now another federal district court has ruled that the doctrine applies to drug manufacturers, too. This is not surprising, since other federal judges have similarly predicted that Nevada’s Supreme Court would apply the learned intermediary rule to drug and medical device
Illinois Cannabis Class Action Goes Up In Smoke
Cannabis is big business, so it was only a matter of time before someone filed a consumer class action claiming that his cannabis was schwag. It happened in Illinois, where a judge in the Northern District promptly shot it down—not because the plaintiff’s theory was necessarily wrong, but because his theory of deception was a
Supreme Court Limits District Courts’ Ability to Cure Jurisdictional Defects
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision resolving a circuit split on an important question of federal subject matter jurisdiction: Whether a district court’s erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party before final judgment can cure a jurisdictional defect that existed when a case was removed to federal court. You might think this is a
Ninth Circuit Reaches Into Its Own Private Idaho For Personal Jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit has been grappling with specific personal jurisdiction ever since the Supreme Court altered the playing field ever so slightly in 2021 with Ford Motor Co. v. Montana. That grappling includes an opinion published just last week, where the Ninth Circuit found specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state medical providers. The medical providers
No Physical Injury, No Damages, Still No Medical Monitoring Class
Sometimes we feel as though we have gone back in time. The Super Bowl is in San Francisco this week, as it was 10 years ago, although this time around, the atrium lobby of our building has been converted into an ESPN studio. We are the temporary home of the Rich Eisen Show, with the
No Harm, No Foul: Medicine Consumers Got What They Paid For
Simply charging a price higher than what plaintiffs want for an effective and non-defective medicine is not a consumer protection violation, and a recent order in the Northern District of Illinois demonstrates that. In Camargo v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 23-cv-02589, 2026 WL 115068 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2026), the district court dismissed a multistate
California Plaintiff Attempts Expert Ambush—And Gets Burned
We have spilled a lot of blog ink on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 recently, so it was nice to see a case from our home state of California driving home the importance of following the rules when it comes to expert opinions. California has a reputation for allowing expert opinions into evidence more permissively