Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Key Considerations for Reshoring U.S. Drug Manufacturing
Drug Pricing Initiatives During the Trump Presidency
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Patent law in Europe: What pharmaceutical companies need to know
EU excessive pricing laws
Polsinelli Podcast - Generic Drugs to Market - What's the Climate in 2014?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inc. v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019), discussed... addressed impossibility preemption in label change lawsuits. In Albrecht, the Supreme Court purported to...more
In the simplest case for federal preemption, federal law prohibits conduct that a state tort duty would require, such as a change in the design of an approved medical device to cure an alleged defect. Because federal law is...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2018. The Product Liability practice group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are some of the key...more
On December 13, 2018, the FDA withdrew a proposed rule that would have authorized manufacturers of generic drugs to use the Changes Being Effected (CBE) procedure to add new safety information to their labeling—something that...more
On March 16, 2018, in a matter of first impression in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) joined a minority of states in recognizing a tort theory of “Innovator Liability” – namely, that brand-name drug...more
After several years of delay, FDA announced this summer that it expects to publish new rules in April 2017 that will permit generic drug companies to make unilateral changes to their warning labels, even if the brand does...more
FDA’s delay on the final version of generic labelling rules until April 2017 means both branded and generic drug manufacturers face continued uncertainty. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced it...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Summer is in full swing and certain topics are (staying) hot—especially regulatory issues, from new proposed rules to challenges to case law to strategic considerations. Generic preemption remains a hot topic. In Storm...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has reopened the comment period for its proposed rule on generic drug labeling. It has also scheduled a day-long public meeting to hear comments and...more
In the watershed case of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the United States Supreme Court determined that federal law preempts state law failure-to-warn claims against generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. More specifically, Mensing...more
On January 20, 2015, the U.S Supreme Court denied cert in Teva v. Superior Court of California, Orange County, refusing to review a California state court ruling allowing patients to proceed with claims that Teva...more
Earlier this week, a Missouri appeals court issued an opinion that will hopefully have a significant impact on ongoing litigation against the manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. In this latest...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, 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
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,...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
Last week the Ninth Circuit created a new state-law cause of action against medical device manufacturers: “failure to warn the FDA.” The en banc opinion in Stengel v. Medtronic Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 106144, 13 C.D.O.S....more