We recently received a couple of links from old friends that we thought we’d pass along. Decades ago, Bexis and some of our other bloggers worked with Peter Grossi – then a senior partner at Arnold & Porter – defending fen-phen cases in Philadelphia and elsewhere. Peter is retired now, but he still teaches law
2024 was a big year for blood and tissue shield statute decisions across the country (from Florida, California, North Carolina, Illinois, and Ohio). And it looks like we added Oregon to the tally this year, but we let Kentucky and Nelson v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc., 2025 WL 2045167 (E.D. Ken.
Several of our Reed Smith bloggers are planning to be in New York on December 3–4 for ACI’s 30th Annual Conference on Drug and Medical Device Litigation. We’re looking forward to hearing Bexis’ participation on a 30-year retrospective panel and other insightful content, while also enjoying valuable networking opportunities and hopefully the chance to connect
We recently returned from our summer vacation in a small European country with a tiny but charming coastline, formidable mountains, abundant vineyards, and relentlessly friendly service. That last bit serves as a clumsy segue into today’s case, Aguila v. RQM+LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155232 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2025), which is mostly about
Today we have a guest post on some recent developments on whether strict liability applies to software, apps, artificial intelligence, and other forms of electronic data, which depends, as this 50-state survey addresses, on whether such intangible items meet the common-law definition of “product.” It is by Reed Smith attorneys (and repeat guest posters) Mildred
Keralink Intl., Inc. v. Stradis Healthcare, LLC, 2025 WL 1947764 (4th Cir. 2025), is a rare published appellate decision on common-law implied indemnity in the context of prescription medical product liability litigation. The case involves two commercial intermediate seller parties already held liable to a buyer of the product (corneal eyewash) that had been
”He that violates his oath profanes the divinity of faith itself.” — Cicero.
It might seem unlikely that, long ago, we noticed the above maxim inscribed on the south side of the Los Angeles City Hall while walking to our first jury trial (almost as unlikely as the fact that we were walking in L.A.). It
Rouviere has been a long and storied litigation. We have shared many parts of that story here (Zoom depositions during Covid), here (turncoat experts), here (reflections on Rambo litigation), and here (summary judgment on statute of limitations). After six years of litigation that ended in a summary judgment that was affirmed on appeal, we thought
We weren’t expecting to find anything bloggable when we reviewed the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, ___ U.S. ___, 2025 WL 1583281 (U.S. June 5, 2025). But we were struck by the familiarity of the allegations of illegal marketing that the Court in S&W held could not be passed off as “aiding and abetting.” These were the same tired and repetitive allegations of purported “illegal marketing” by independent actors in the distribution chain that we have seen in so many drug/device cases – sometimes masquerading as “public nuisance.”
We think our clients can use S&W against such allegations, at least by analogy.Continue Reading Unanimous Supreme Court Slaps Down Familiar Sounding Marketing Allegations In Landmark Gun Decision
For the decades that we have been handling drug and medical device product liability cases, it has been a given that we wanted to make it clear that our clients did not provide medical care or healthcare directly to patients. For one thing, unauthorized practice of medicine would be bad. Also, when dealing with prescription