We didn’t really think there was any connection between President Reagan and Riegel v. Medtronic.
But then we saw how the case brought out the best in one plaintiff’s lawyer. So that got us to thinking.
Back in the 1950s and ’60s, Tom Lehrer wrote an awful lot of riotously funny songs. (For
We’ve had an unusual number of plaintiffs’ side blogs link to our Riegel posts over the past several days. While we’re flattered that the other side thinks we’re worth noticing, the traffic from these links has produced quite a few comments trashing either the Supreme Court (especially Justice Scalia), the FDA, or both. We’ve returned
Yeah, it was a hell of a party … but we’re sober now.
One of us even got almost hilariously misquoted in the press, when the reporter got the effect of the 2006 Preemption Preamble exactly backwards. As everyone reading this knows, in 2006 the FDA invigorated – not impeded – preemption.
But it’s time
More on Riegel – this time from one of our recidivist guest posters, Adam Masin at Reed Smith.
He thinks there may be a silver lining for drug defendants in Justice Ginsberg’s anti-preemption dissent.
******************************
Justice Ginsberg, the lone dissenter in Riegel, had a lot of relevant things to say about preemption in
Now we’ve read it, and before we go off to celebrate (and maybe to look for new jobs as IP lawyers – that’s a joke, folks), we thought we’d tell our readers why that’s exactly what we’re doing.
The 7-1 Riegel decision definitively demolishes a lot of the arguments we’ve been seeing for years (if
We’ve just received a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic. Here’s a copy. We haven’t even read it all yet, but it’s looking like a big win for preemption. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for 7 Justices. Justice Stevens concurred and Justice Ginsburg dissented. The PMA process sets “requirements” within
There’s never been a more interesting time to be a drug and device defense lawyer; this field is hopping. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two preemption cases, and a third, even bigger, issue is in the pipeline. This is the Supreme Court’s preemption trilogy, in chronological order:
Riegel v. Medtronic
On Tuesday, December
Public Citizen often appears in opposition to conflict preemption in drug cases. That’s their right. One of our number, Bexis, does the same thing on the defense side for PLAC. But Public Citizen goes farther, and actually assumes representation of plaintiffs on appeal. That’s why Public Citizen was arguing the plaintiff’s side of Riegel v.
We were too busy – and none of our clients would pay for it in any event – so we didn’t attend yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument in Riegel v. Medtronic. But fortunately for us, and by extension all of you reading this, one of our old friends (and a dedicated reader) was there
Riegel v. Medtronic was argued today in the Supreme Court. So far, the reports we’ve heard from people who were there are optimistic – but people believe what they want to believe, it’s human nature. Here’s a link to the transcript of the Riegel oral argument (we just got it and haven’t read it), so