No one can sell a new drug without prior approval from the FDA. That rule is codified in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and is not controversial (or at least should not be controversial). Less clear is whether a seller of an FDA-approved drug can sue a competitor under state unfair competition laws
implied preemption
Gardasil MDL Sets Guardrails For Implied Preemption, And Gets It Right
Preemption Case to Watch:Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., Food Labeling, and the California Sherman Act

Last summer, we gleaned the bitter fields of Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., an opinion in which the Ninth Circuit allowed direct private enforcement of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) food labeling requirements because the class plaintiff used the fig leaf of California’s Sherman Act to do so. Our post about the Ninth…
“Pre-approval” Defect Claims Make No Sense
No Private Right of Action Under the FDCA in Big Sky Country

We have been to Montana only once. Through various life events, we have traveled by highway from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Midwest multiple times, so we are somewhat familiar with the mountains of Utah, western railroad towns like Cheyenne and North Platte, and the long rolling expanse known as Nebraska. We never…
This Is Why Federal Law Preempts “Pre-Approval” Design Defect Claims

We knew as soon as we read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mutual Pharma v. Bartlett that its reasoning should extend beyond generic drugs and would support implied preemption in generic and innovator products alike. We were generally correct. Bartlett held that federal law preempted state law design defect claims involving a generic drug because…
N.D. Cal. Sees No Standing or Merit in Eye Cosmetic Claims

Our best college era summer job was working as a staffer for the New Jersey State Senate. The Abscam investigation was ongoing, and it seemed that every week there’d be another empty seat in the Senate chamber courtesy of the FBI. Good times. We doubt we personally performed any services that were useful for Garden…
California Court Again Embraces Hindsight Claims

We have been monitoring litigation involving tenofovir-based HIV medication for some time now. We reported a few weeks ago on oral argument in the California Court of Appeal, where the parties debated a novel “duty to innovate” under California law. We also gave you our view on the 2019 order that many say kickstarted these…
What A Difference A Decade+ Makes

Thirteen years litigating the same case is a looooong time. Absurdly long. Long enough for an attorney working on the case to go from an associate learning to coax a newborn to sleep, to a partner juggling teen school and soccer commitments. Long enough for lawyers to migrate from Blackberrys and voicemail, to smart phones…
A Dismissal Trifecta: Personal Jurisdiction, Preemption, and Twombly Doom Product-Liability Claims in the Northern District of Ohio

Today we report on Farson v. Coopersurgical, Inc., 2023 WL 5002818 (N.D. Ohio 2023), a product-liability decision that dismissed all claims against all defendants based on lack of personal jurisdiction, preemption, and Twombly.
Claiming that she was injured when an implantable medical device migrated in her body, the plaintiff brought suit in Ohio…