It is starting to feel like spring.  For those with a poetic or philosophical bent, spring may bring thoughts of renewal and the cyclical rhythms of the planet, among other things.  For those interested in more practical things, perhaps the need to do a spring cleaning or plan for some plantings outside.  Clutter does have

It’s a good day in suburban Philadelphia.  The sun is shining, the snow is melting, Covid-19 cases are down nationwide, and we just got a text from the Drug and Device Law Rock Climber heralding a weekend visit (with the Irascible Rescue Pomeranian in tow).  We are enjoying a welcome (if cautious) flash of optimism. 

Plaintiffs tend to assert a bunch of different claims.  For prescription medical device cases, setting aside preemption, our experience is that plaintiffs do best—that is, avoid summary judgment and directed verdict—with design defect (strict liability or negligence) claims.  One reason for that is that it tends not to be hard to make up some theory,

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

Dear Readers,

The tone of today’s missive may be slightly more formal than most.  For you see, as a result of binge watching Bridgerton on Netflix, the written word is being narrated in our head by the incomparable Julie Andrews.  We so greatly esteem

We refuse to end the year on a bad note, so we’ll talk about a case that’s good – not good enough to make tomorrow’s top-ten list, but good enough to slam the door shut on 2020 with a reasonable amount of cheer.

Vicente v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 WL 7586907 (D.N.J. Dec. 21,

Today’s topic is something a little different.  We don’t usually think of after market modifications to prescription drugs and medical devices.  If this were a blog about cars, computers, or almost anything with a motor or engine that can be enhanced for speed – user modifications would be a central theme. In the drug and

There was an awful lot for defense counsel to contend with in Cavanaugh v. Stryker Corp., 2020 WL 5937405 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App., 4th Dist. Oct. 7, 2020).  The patient died during surgery when the defendant manufacturer’s suction device damaged his heart.  Another patient died under similar circumstances two years earlier.  The manufacturer