We’re interested in artificial intelligence, particularly as it affects medical devices, but we don’t know all that much about it, and it’s yet to make much of an impact in our product liability sandbox.  Fortunately, we know some folks who do stay informed on this topic, and that’s what today’s guest post is about.  In

When we last examined the FDA’s sporadic effort to update the archaic “intended use” regulations (primarily 21 C.F.R. §§201.128 (drugs), 801.4 (devices)), the 2017 bait-and-switch amendment to these regulations had been put on ice.  That has led to the bizarre Westlaw “currentness” notice for these regulations:

<Text of section effective upon the effective date of

Not too long ago we researched and posted about how preemption precludes private plaintiffs from second-guessing FDA decisions on the marketing and classification of the products the Agency regulates.  Looking through that post again, we note that quite a few of those decisions (although well less than half) involved commercial disputes of one sort or

To us – and we suspect to most of the exceptional public servants employed by the FDA – Sunday, August 23, 2020 will be a day they would rather forget.  On that day the Agency issued an “emergency use authorization” (“EUA”) for what is known as “convalescent plasma” for the treatment of COVID-19,

One of the advantages that the FDA (and other government agencies) have over other litigants is that it gets to ignore court decisions it doesn’t like, in hopes of trying again later in what the Agency considers a more favorable forum.  Here’s how one court described the same policy by a different agency:

Understood in

The “fraud on the FDA” claim that the Supreme Court held preempted in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), was actually the most extreme form of a private plaintiff second-guessing the result of an FDA process classifying a regulated product.  Plaintiffs claimed that, because of purported “fraud” in the §510(k)

Truly unique cases are, well, unique. Most cases involve variations or combinations of cases we have seen before. Sometimes you get different results between two decisions on basically the same case with a single fact different. In February, we posted on an Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision on a motion to dismiss in a case