Picture a deposition of a plaintiff’s treating physician. Early in the deposition, defense counsel asks the usual questions about the physician’s communications with the plaintiff’s counsel. But the plaintiff’s counsel,...more
Consumer perception evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in a false advertising class action, but vacillating and flawed connections between the evidence and the key question of what a reasonable...more
A popular New Year’s trend is to say “goodbye” to all the things that didn’t serve you in 2023, as you usher in new intentions and habits for 2024. Although there were many great trial outcomes and continuing scientific wins...more
1/5/2024
/ Class Action ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Human Genome Project ,
Life Sciences ,
Mallory v Norfolk Southern Railway Co ,
Mass Tort Litigation ,
Medical Devices ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Prescription Drugs
As we ring in the new year, it is time once again to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments for drug and device companies this year. The list below is by no means exhaustive (who could forget the Rule 702...more
12/23/2022
/ Artificial Intelligence ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Causation ,
Class Action ,
Collective Redress ,
Consumer Fraud ,
EU ,
Failure To Warn ,
Federal Industry Standards ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Healthcare ,
Infringement ,
Litigation Funding ,
Medical Devices ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Privacy Laws ,
Regulatory Standards ,
Remedies ,
Settlement ,
State and Local Government ,
Statute of Limitations
There are few legal phrases more fun to say than “ipse dixit.” The phrase is most commonly used in motions to exclude experts who base their opinions on nothing more than their own say so...more
As we ring in the new year, it is time, once again, to reflect on the most significant legal developments for our drug and device clients this year. Below is a brief recap and assessment of our top-five developments impacting...more
In a year where the use of “unprecedented” became routine, COVID-19 dominated just about every aspect of life, and its impact on drug and device law was no less encompassing. As we bid adieu and good riddance to 2020, we...more
On August 25, 2020, Judge Richard L. Young, S.D. Indiana, granted Cook Medical Inc.’s motion for sanctions against the plaintiff’s law firm in Burrage v. Cook Medical Inc. et al.
This case was one of many “no-injury”...more
It’s that time of year again—the end of one and beginning of another—when we pause, reflect and look forward to the year ahead. In this retrospective, we consider the past year’s legal developments in the drug and medical...more
At the end of 2016, we highlighted the United States Supreme Court’s hearing of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court as a decision “of great concern to drug and device companies” as it pertains to plaintiff forum...more
In the world of mass torts, there is no shortage of scheme or artifice plaintiffs’ counsel will use to try to avoid the removal of lawsuits to federal court. However, it would be unreasonable and unjustified for a defendant,...more
As 2015 winds down, we reflected on some of the year’s most significant legal developments for drug and device manufacturers. In our opinion, the bench got it right (for the most part) this year. Here is a brief recap and...more
Since completion of the Human Genome Project, genomic profiling and the related advent of personalized medicine have become a hot topic. Many predicted this new genomic information would lead to targeted drug treatments that...more