A Narrow Exception To The Mensing Preemption Defense

The Sixth Circuit recently held that a failure-to-warn claim could proceed against a generic manufacturer that had failed to timely follow the brand-name label. Fulgenzi v. Pliva Inc., Case No. 12-3504 (6th Cir. March 13, 2013). In doing so, the court created a narrow exception to the preemption defense established by Pliva Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).

Liability for Generic Manufacturers After Mensing -

In Mensing¸ the U.S. Supreme Court held that failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers were preempted because it was impossible to comply with both state and federal law. The court reasoned that, because federal law requires generic manufacturers to maintain the “same” labels as that of the branded drug, it is impossible for generic manufacturers to independently change their drugs’ labels to avoid liability for failure-to-warn claims under state law.

Originally published in Law360 on April 04, 2013.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Morrison & Foerster LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.