Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pending Ruling on National Bank Preemption: A Discussion of Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
U.S. District Court Addresses Federal Preemption for State Credit Reporting Laws
State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 24 - Special Edition: Spotlight on the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 386: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
[Podcast] Cellular Agriculture and the Evolving Legal/Regulatory Landscape: A Conversation with Ahmed Khan
Keeping Up With the Bureau Episode 2: FCRA Preemption Issues, Infringing State Laws, and the CFPB's Position
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Law of the Land? Cannabis, Preemption, and SCOTUS [More with McGlinchey Ep. 37]
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 162: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Case In Point: Recent Developments in Employment Law
Employment Law Now V-96- LOTS of Big Employment Law Developments
Nota Bene Episode 101: Catching up with Global Climate Regulation with Nico van Aelstyn
We have written before about the Supreme Court’s impossibility preemption decision, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019) (Albrecht) (here, here, here, and here), highlighting some open questions and...more
Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeals in Mize v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 51 Cal.App.5th 850 (2020), reversed a trial court’s dismissal of failure to warn and other claims against a medical device manufacturer,...more
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
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+...more
Welcome to the third 2019 issue of Product Lines – our quarterly e-newsletter that focuses on toxic torts and products liability issues.... In This Edition: - Vitamin E Found in Cannabis-Containing Vape Products Linked...more
After years of limited guidance, the Supreme Court has finally provided direction to lower courts on the issue of preemption when they delivered their opinion in Merck v. Albrecht. “Preemption” is a common defense used by...more
For some long-awaited events, a little time and distance can add a measure of clarity. Not always – many still are processing the Game of Thrones finale, with no end in sight. But over the past few weeks pharmaceutical...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
The United States Supreme Court finally clarified its 11-year-old “clear evidence” standard for pharmaceutical preemption. In its much-anticipated opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court unanimously reversed the Third...more
The US Supreme Court held on May 20 that a judge, not a jury, must decide the question of whether federal law prohibited drug manufacturers from adding warnings to the drug label that would satisfy state law. To succeed on a...more
Opinion highlights importance of a "clear" record at FDA - On 20 May the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal preemption questions arising under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) are for a...more
Following confusion from a 2009 decision, the US Supreme Court on May 20, 2019, decided a significant impossibility preemption case. This new decision will change the dynamics of litigation involving the impossibility...more
The Situation: Name-brand pharmaceutical manufacturers are often sued with claims that they should have strengthened the warnings on their labels, even where (as here) the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not allow...more
Last week, in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, the Supreme Court continued its explication of the balance between state law tort liability that can be imposed on drug makers and the extent to which this liability can be...more
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court found that a judge is better suited than a jury to decide if consumers’ tort claims are preempted by federal regulations. In the case, Merck Sharp & Dome, Corp. v. Albreecht, the...more
On May 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its latest opinion on preemption in cases involving prescription medications, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290 (U.S. May 20, 2019). ...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its potentially most significant preemption decision in several years, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albright, 587 U.S. ____ (2019), reversing what some had dubbed the worst drug and device...more
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290, holding that the judge, not the jury, must decide whether state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by...more
A judge, and not the jury, is the better-positioned and appropriate decisionmaker to determine whether a failure-to-warn claim is federally preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Monday, May 20, 2019. The Court also...more
In 2019, significant developments are expected on issues that have been percolating in the mass tort and class action litigation arena for several years. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on cases relating to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to consider a Third Circuit ruling that revived litigation over Merck’s alleged failure to warn about a risk of femoral fractures from its osteoporosis drug Fosamax. The precise question...more
On December 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"). In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., 15-cv-1499 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the...more
Last June, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court handed down its interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of biosimilar drugs. As we reported at the time, the...more
As we have previously reported, on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Amgen v. Sandoz holding that notice of commercial marketing may be given prior to FDA approval. The Court also held that no...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court brought greater certainty to two key issues relating to the “patent dance” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). First, the Court held that where a...more