We’ve been asked two questions repeatedly since the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Warner-Lambert v. Kent. We’re answering both of them publicly today.
First, we have no idea why the Supreme Court took the case. No one does. (Well, actually, nine people know, but they wear robes, and they’re not talking.)
There are two
As readers of this blog know, we’re keenly interested in Warner-Lambert v. Kent, the “fraud-on-the-FDA preemption” case in which the Supreme Court granted certiorari last week.
We noted the grant of cert (and provided the cert petition, opposition brief, and reply) here, discussed the broader implications of the case here, and did
Ever since the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Warner Lambert v. Kent the other day, we’ve been thinking about what’s at stake. We’ve seen the case described by Bloomberg as a “chance to extend a victory [defendants] won in 2001, when the Supreme Court said patients can’t sue companies for defrauding the U.S. Food and
The first question we’ll be asked, of course, is whether a decision in Warner-Lambert v. Kent, which involves a Michigan state law, will have broad national implications.
In a word, yes.
The Michigan law involved in Kent essentially bars product liability claims against manufacturers of prescription drugs — unless a manufacturer defrauded the FDA.
The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in the case formerly known as Desiano.
The case comes out of the Second Circuit. In very general terms, Michigan state law protects drug manufacturers from liability in products cases unless the manufacturer defrauded the Food and Drug Administration. The question is whether Buckman preemption invalidates the fraud-on-the-FDA