This blogger spent the weekend in Morgantown, and West Virginia did everything right except the football score. The leaves were doing their early turn, that first crisp snap was in the air, and the drive in on 68 delivered exactly the scenery you hope for — ridge after ridge of Appalachian foothills rolling out in
Pleading
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…
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…
Buckman Limits Claims In A Commercial Case
The Supreme Court decided Buckman in the context of a fairly large product liability litigation about implanted medical devices. In the years that followed, the plaintiffs in drug and device product liability litigation tried a number of arguments to cabin the impact of Buckman. For instance, they argued that it 1) did not apply…
Claims Can Still Be Preempted If The Drug Is Later Withdrawn
Long ago, it seemed that large-scale drug or device litigation was usually spurred on by a recall, market withdrawal, or major labeling change describing a new risk or limiting the scope of product use. The plaintiff lawyers these days seem to be more willing to put their energy into attacking currently marketed products without triggering…
You Can’t Teach an Old Complaint New Tricks
Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal Where Judicially Noticed Facts Contradict the Complaint
Late last year, when we were putting together our massive post that collected and categorized every case that had ever judicially noticed an FDA document, we ran across the intriguing proposition that in deciding Rule 12 pleading-based motions, “allegations in a complaint are not credited where contradicted by judicially noticeable documents.” We cited several appellate…
An Ultra Processed Complaint Fails
This post comes from the non-RS and non-Dechert side of the Blog.
The great post-modern existentialist philosopher John Madden once said, “If you have two quarterbacks, you actually have no quarterback.” This was not the result of a fanciful math equation where you (impermissibly) divide by zero. In American football, except on rare trick plays…
Non-Patent Implications of Supreme Court’s “Skinny Label” Hikma Decision
We don’t normally discuss patent/intellectual property issues on the Blog, even though they arise all the time in prescription medical product litigation. The reason is simple − our clients (and target audience) can be found on either side of the “v.” So, it’s best that we leave the offering of opinions on patent/IP issues to…