Johnson v. Ridge Tool Manufacturing Co., 186 F.4th 478 (7th Cir. 2026), is a product liability decision involving a drain cleaning machine, not a prescription medical product. But that doesn’t mean that our clients won’t find it useful. A unanimous Seventh Circuit panel, interpreting Illinois law, affirmed summary judgment on both the plaintiff’s design
Design Defect
N.D. Cal. Dismisses Device Claim for Lack of Defect
Perez v. Apyx Medical Corp., 2026 WL 2691359 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2026), is a product liability suit alleging misrepresentations about off-label use of a company’s cosmetic surgery §510(k) device. That, at least, is how we read the complaint. The court read the complaint a bit differently. The opinion was authored by the Judge…
California’s Recent Gilead Decision Explains Why “Pre-Approval” Tort Claims Don’t, and Shouldn’t, Exist
Nearly a decade ago we published the blogpost “Pre-Approval Design Defects – No Such Thing.” As we discussed, “pre-approval” design (later joined by warning) claims were a transparent preemption dodge. No such claims had ever been advanced before the Supreme Court’s holdings in the generic drug preemption cases (Mensing/Bartlett)…
Two Strikes Was Enough In California Federal Court
Over the life of the Blog, there have been many posts taking issue with the pro-plaintiff leanings of California courts, which have resulted in many questionable decisions on issues ranging from expanding personal jurisdiction to shrinking preemption to re-writing the duties of medical product manufacturers under California law. We have also thrown more than a…
Tort Hierarchy in Reverse?
Every law student learns the same tidy hierarchy on day one of Torts. Negligence is harder to prove than strict liability, because strict liability does not require showing the defendant did anything wrong, only that the product itself was defective. And recklessness is harder still than negligence, reserved for conduct that goes well beyond a…
No Duty to Innovate: California Supreme Court Rejects New Negligence Theory
The California Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in Gilead Tenofovir Cases yesterday, and as we hoped, the Court held that a drug manufacturer owes no duty of care when deciding whether and when to develop an allegedly safer alternative drug to replace an admittedly non-defective product. The decision is a significant win for…
You Can’t Teach an Old Complaint New Tricks
Pedicle Screw Robots (and some World Cup)
You’ve probably noticed there’s been a lot of soccer going on recently. We don’t purport to be experts on the “beautiful game,” but every four years we find ourselves riveted by a sport we don’t always watch and sometimes don’t understand. The expanded field of 48 teams generated lots of unexpected excitement, and we thoroughly…
Comment k Takes a Hit in the Covidien Mesh MDL
A few weeks ago, we found ourselves underwhelmed by the court’s Rule 702 rulings in the Covidien Hernia Mesh MDL. Today, we can say much the same thing about its summary judgment decision. In In re: Covidien Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation No. II, 2026 WL 1555914 (D. Mass. June 2, 2026), the…
California Supreme Court Hears Argument On The “Duty to Innovate”
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…