Stefan Hankin on Online Harassment
What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
A Moment of Simple Justice - Revenge Porn
Why Cyber Security?
How Fenwick Partners Caught the Tech Wave
How is Graphene Currently Used and What is the Hope for the Future?
What is Graphene? Fenwick Patent Attorney Has the Answer
Two Tips for Inventors Filing Patent Applications
Are Criminal Laws the Right Response to Revenge Porn?
Why Law Firms Are Starting to Think Like Media Companies
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
Protecting and Enforcing Your High Technology Intellectual Property - Webinar Replay
Did the IRS Just Help or Hurt the Bitcoin Economy?
Legal Tech Startups: Separating Hype from Opportunity
Jail Time for Revenge Porn Offenses?
Polsinelli Podcast - Conducting Business in China
Rolling Out LPM Software at Akin Gump
Polsinelli Podcast - Generic Drugs to Market - What's the Climate in 2014?
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
Data Center Networks – Interview with Jeff Moerdler, Member, Mintz Levin
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Medtronic, Inc. v. Stengel, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision permitting a failure-to-warn claim against a pre-market approval (PMA)...more
An economic consulting group recently published findings that a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed rule will increase annual healthcare costs by $4 billion. The FDA's proposal, announced in November 2013, would allow...more
A motion to dismiss can be a powerful tool in the hands of medical device companies to eliminate cases that should be dismissed from the outset on preemption grounds, before engaging in costly discovery. Oftentimes, however,...more
Since 2008 New Jersey law has effectively granted pharmaceutical manufacturers immunity from punitive damages claims. While New Jersey state courts continue to recognise and enforce that immunity, some recent federal court...more
In our prior blog post of the same title on July 5, 2013, we predicted that the protection from product liability/failure to warn litigation for generic manufacturers as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Mutual...more
Makers of medical devices marketed pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) premarket approval process are generally relieved from defending state law failure to warn claims by operation of express preemption, a...more
Litigation over the labeling of pharmaceuticals dates back to the mid-1800s. In only the last five years, however, two watershed decisions by the United States Supreme Court have established clear, albeit controversial,...more
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a long-awaited proposed rule in the Federal Register in an effort to “create parity” between brand-name and generic manufacturers for their labeling obligations. 78...more
In a recent decision issuing from the Central District of California, the court evaluated requirements pertaining to federal preemption and pleading, and granted Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.’s...more
In late June the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the much-anticipated Mutual Pharms. Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (on appeal from the First Circuit Bartlett v. Mutual Pharms. Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012)). As we...more
On June 24, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. ____ (2013), finding that design-defect claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted where...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) preempted the respondent's common law claim for damages arising from the...more
On June 24, 2013, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett held that state-law design-defect claims based on the inadequacy of a generic drug’s labeled warnings are pre-empted...more
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the broad preemptive scope of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), and further extended the reach of impossibility preemption to design defect claims, in issuing its...more
The old adage "Bad cases make bad law" is invoked when the facts of a case lead a court to rule in favor of the particular entities before it rather than applying the law consistently. (Although anyone familiar with recent...more
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the notion that a manufacturer’s option to stop selling its product resolves preemption concerns raised by conflicting state and federal laws....more
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that state law design defect claims against manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals are preempted by federal law when the claim hinges on the adequacy of the drug's...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the much-anticipated Mutual Pharms. Co. v. Bartlett, No. 12-142 (on appeal from the First Circuit Bartlett v. Mutual Pharms. Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012)). As we...more
In a significant victory for generic drug companies, the Supreme Court today issued its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, reversing the decision of the First Circuit, which had affirmed a multimillion dollar...more
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, concerning whether design-defect claims against generic drug companies are preempted by federal law. Although the case addresses...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral argument in the much-anticipated Mutual Pharmaceuticals v. Bartlett case, No. 12-142 (on appeal from the First Circuit Bartlett v. Mutual Pharms. Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012)). The...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, a follow-up to its landmark ruling in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), which addressed federal...more
Medical Device Companies should be aware of a recent en banc ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that has the potential to increase litigation involving class III medical devices....more
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s five–four decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing,1 it appears doubtful that many state-law-based claims against generic drug manufacturers remain viable. In Mensing, the Supreme Court held that...more
The Supreme Court yesterday decided Wyeth v. Levine, the long-awaited decision on preemption of state court product liability claims against the pharmaceutical manufacturers. In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court determined...more
Find a Science, Computers & Technology Author »
Back to Top