Washington

Subscribe to Washington via RSS
Photo of Eric Hudson

The title of today’s post is from a quote by Justice Holmes in a dissenting opinion, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).  Abrams involved a conviction under the Espionage Act based on the publication of leaflets that were distributed in New York during World War I. Among other things, the leaflets denounced President Wilson as a hypocrite and a coward, and lamented the “hypocrisy of the plutocratic gang in Washington and vicinity.” Id. at 620.  In his dissent (joined by Justice Brandeis), Justice Holmes espoused the power of free speech in connection with our country’s experiment with its Constitution. Or, as Justice Holmes more eloquently put it: “It is an experiment. All life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system[,] I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death . . . .” Id. at 630.Continue Reading The Best Test of Truth Is the Power of the Thought to Get Itself Accepted in the Competition of the Market

Photo of Eric Hudson

Sometimes opinions go entirely in favor of the defense, analyzing numerous, independent bases for the dismissal of a complaint.  Today’s decision, Doyle v. Bayer Corp., 2025 WL 1666261 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2025), is definitely one of those. It is a perfect example of what should happen when a plaintiff files a generic, bare-bones complaint in a prescription medical product case.

Plaintiff had an intrauterine device (IUD) implanted, and after about two years was informed that the IUD had likely been expelled from her body.  More than ten years after that, plaintiff obtained an x-ray for a persistent cough.  Doctors suspected that a shadow shown on the x-ray in the plaintiff’s abdomen was the IUD.  Plaintiff subsequently had surgery to remove the IUD, and she and her husband then filed suit against the manufacturer. Plaintiffs asserted five common law product liability claims and a sixth for unfair business practices.Continue Reading Belt and Suspenders – Dismissal in the Western District of Washington

Photo of Eric Alexander

In Hall v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., the Supreme Court of Washington considered a certified question from the Northern District of Illinois on an issue of Washington state law.  No. 102829-6, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 145 (Wash. Mar. 20, 2025).  The underlying case, a proposed consumer protection class action, involves the labeling of certain over-the-counter…

Photo of Stephen McConnell

In the litigation strategy class we teach at Penn Law, we always set aside a few minutes to go over the Aristotelian rhetoric trilogy of logos, pathos. and ethos.  As you probably already know, logos is the persuasive value of an argument’s logic, pathos is the power of sympathy, and ethos refers to one’s character…

Photo of Michelle Yeary

So learned plaintiff in United States ex rel. Plaintiff v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174825 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2024), when the court granted defendant’s two motions to compel obviously relevant documents and information.

Plaintiff relator and intervening plaintiff, the State of Washington, assert False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims against the…

Photo of Susanna Moldoveanu

For readers noticing the new byline, let me introduce myself.  I am Susanna Moldoveanu, and I practice with Butler Snow LLP’s Pharmaceutical, Medical Device and Healthcare group.  I am excited to join the Drug & Device Law Blogging Team.  The best group of legal wonks there is.

Today we discuss the Western District of Washington’s recent summary judgment order in Dearinger v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2023 WL 8717570 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2023).  A prior opinion in this case earned the top spot on the Blog’s Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2022.  This opinion is short and sweet, but a good one too.Continue Reading W.D. Wash. Nixes Failure to Warn Claim Under Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Photo of Andrew Tauber

As we have previously observed, limits on personal jurisdiction matter because the outcome of litigation is heavily influenced by where a case is filed. Since the Supreme Court confirmed the narrow confines of general jurisdiction in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman,…

Photo of Andrew Tauber

A federal court has asked the supreme court of Washington to address the scope of that state’s learned-intermediary doctrine. In particular, it has asked whether Washington recognizes a “direct-to-consumer” exception to the doctrine.

Under the learned-intermediary doctrine, which has been adopted by every state other than West Virginia, a manufacturer of a prescription medical product…

Drug & Device Resources

Bexis’ Book

FDA-regulated products now account for an estimated one-fifth of overall economic activity in the U.S. They have also been the focus of a litigation explosion. This timely guide covers all aspects of litigation involving drugs, medical devices, vaccines and other FDA-regulated prescription products.
Learn more about this book