No one can sell a new drug without prior approval from the FDA. That rule is codified in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and is not controversial (or at least should not be controversial). Less clear is whether a seller of an FDA-approved drug can sue a competitor under state unfair competition laws
California Consumers Splash Down In NJ Class Action
Plaintiffs often like to sue in New Jersey, but that does not mean they always get what they want. The California plaintiffs in Serrano v. Campbell Soup Co. sued a beverage company in New Jersey, but the court rejected their New Jersey law claims and left them with only one California claim—and even then, only
Notorious Medicare Secondary Payer Plaintiffs Bounced Again
The MSP plaintiffs are at it again, and without success this time around. In MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC v. Pfizer Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38647 (D.D.C. Mar. 4, 2025), the group of law firms formed to file lawsuits under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (hence the “MSP” in the various plaintiffs’ names)
Pixels and Class Certification
We reported a few months ago on a California court that largely gutted a pharma-related privacy class action centered on the alleged disclosure of personal information through the use of computer pixels. Today we bring you another pixel case, but with a different outcome. In Jancik v. WebMD LLC, No. 1:22-cv-644, 2025 U.S. Dist.
Ninth Circuit Rejects “Right To Try” Hallucinogenic Drugs
There is a new twist in the “Right to Try” movement: A doctor in Seattle sued the DEA trying to establish a statutory right to treat terminally ill patients with hallucinogenic drugs without the DEA’s registration or approval. It did not work.
Fourth Circuit Rejects Pharma-Funded Charitable Patient Assistance Program
The federal government and the Fourth Circuit have ruled that a charitable patient assistant program conceived to increase access to cancer drugs for needy patients violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. In an opinion long on canons of statutory interpretation and short on compassion for sick and dying patients, the Fourth Circuit upheld an HHS advisory
Supreme Court Holds That Dismissing Federal Claims Kills Federal Jurisdiction
When a defendant removes a case to federal court on the basis that the case presents federal questions, what happens if the plaintiff amends the complaint to remove all references to federal law, leaving only state-law claims? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that once the plaintiff amends to delete all federal claims, a federal
“Pre-approval” Defect Claims Make No Sense
Every time we read an order about “pre-approval” defects in prescription drugs, we stop to scratch our heads. It is not because we are easily confused, at least not on most days. No, we pause to ponder what exactly a “pre-approval” defect is and how a company can be held to answer for an alleged
Federal Judge In California Burns Both Sides With Expert Rulings
The District Judge in Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc. is evidently on a year-end push. We reported just the other day on the court’s order granting summary on the plaintiff’s warnings-based claims, but denying summary judgment on design defect. A few days later, the court ruled on the parties’ motions to exclude expert opinions. This
MDL Time: Forever and a Day Later, California Law Applies To Hip Implant Claims
A case we reviewed a couple of months ago came to mind recently, not only because of its result, but also because how long it has been kicking around in our federal court system, trapped in an MDL. What refreshed our recollection? As regular blog consumers have read this week, the annual ACI Drug