News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › FDA Approval

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Jenner & Block

Client Alert: Access to Mifepristone Still Standing for Now, but Questions Remain

Jenner & Block on

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous Court dismissing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine from the case for lack of...more

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive...

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to FDA Approval of Mifepristone: Impact on Health Plans

Proskauer - Employee Benefits & Executive... on

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drug mifepristone, which is used as part of a two-drug protocol to induce abortion. The Court ruled that...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Contradictory Court Opinions Leave the Approval of Abortion Medication in Question

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

On April 7, 2023, two federal judges in Texas and Washington State issued dueling opinions about the abortion medication Mifepristone, just hours apart. These two decisions come in the midst of growing tension about abortion...more

Hogan Lovells

Trump administration reversal would take away FDA’s authority to approve biosimilars

Hogan Lovells on

On June 25, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court that reverses the government’s prior position by arguing that none of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Third Circuit Clarifies Next Steps in Fosamax Decision

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Worth the Wait? Some Semi-Mature Thoughts on Albrecht

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Butler Snow LLP

No Way Around It: The Need for Federal "Permission and Assistance" Can Preempt a State Tort Duty

Butler Snow LLP on

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed

Supreme Court Decides Prescription Drug Preemption Case in Favor of Drug Manufacturer

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed on

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

Morgan Lewis

Supreme Court Clarifies Judges Must Decide Impossibility Pre-Emption

Morgan Lewis on

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

Hogan Lovells

U.S. Supreme Court rules judges must decide whether preemption applies, and clarifies when it does

Hogan Lovells on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

US Supreme Court Refines Impossibility Preemption Doctrine, Changes Litigation Dynamics

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Jones Day

Supreme Court Sides with Merck in Unanimous Fosamax® Product-Liability Decision

Jones Day on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (2019)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

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

Husch Blackwell LLP

Supreme Court Reiterates That Federal Law Preemption For Product Warnings Is A Matter For Judge, Not Jury

Husch Blackwell LLP on

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

Troutman Pepper

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Implied Preemption in Prescription Drug Cases

Troutman Pepper on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Judges to Decide Whether Manufacturers Meet “Clear Evidence” Impossibility Preemption Standard, Supreme Court Says

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Labeling Preemption Questions are for the Court, not the Jury, Holds U.S. Supreme Court in Fosamax Decision That Clarifies the...

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

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

Jones Day

Supreme Court: Biosimilar Applicants May Provide Commercial Marketing Notice Before FDA Approval

Jones Day on

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important questions under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of generic biologics: (i) the...more

Mintz - Health Care Viewpoints

SCOTUS Ruling Gives a Boost to Biosimilars; FDA Continues to Advance Products Through AdComs

Mintz - Health Care Viewpoints on

On a sweltering hot D.C. morning, those of us anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s opinion in its first case involving biosimilar biological products finally exhaled. The June 12, 2017 opinion followed the parties’ oral...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Amgen v. Sandoz: The Supreme Court’s First Biosimilars Ruling

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

In a unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted key provisions of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1195...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Permits Biosimilar Drugs to Be Marketed Sooner

Snell & Wilmer on

On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA...more

Jackson Walker

SCOTUS Simplifies Market Entry Process for Biosimilar Products

Jackson Walker on

Yesterday’s unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sandoz v. Amgen injects much needed certainty into a difficult statute and streamlines the process for biosimilar products to enter the marketplace following FDA...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

The Patent Dance Is Optional

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Decision Largely Favors Biosimilar Applicants

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first interpretations of the biosimilar patent dispute resolution procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), ruling largely in favor of Sandoz on both issues...more

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide