A Short-Lived Victory for Generic Manufacturers?

By | Life Sciences Law Blog | December 30, 2013
A Short-Lived Victory for Generic Manufacturers?

In our prior blog post of the same title on July 5, 2013, we predicted that the protection from product liability/failure to warn litigation for generic manufacturers as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013) might be short-lived. 

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

SCOTUS Doubles Down On Design Defect Labeling Preemption and Rescues Generic Drug Manufacturers from the “Stop-Selling” Abyss

SCOTUS Doubles Down On Design Defect Labeling Preemption and Rescues Generic Drug Manufacturers from the “Stop-Selling” Abyss

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett that state law design-defect claims focusing on labeling of generic drugs are preempted by federal law.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

The Undeniable Fact of a Pro-Big-Business Supreme Court

Three years ago, Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago was peddling falsehoods and misconceptions about malpractice law that wouldn’t pass a 1L Torts class. Via Walter Olson, I see he’s back with a piece titled, “The Myth of a Pro-Business SCOTUS,” claiming “Commentators inaccurately condemn the five conservative justices as corporate shills.”

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Possible Implications of Mutual V. Bartlett for Design Defect Claims Involving 510(k) Medical Devices

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. __ (2013), holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s generic prescription drug was defectively designed was impliedly preempted.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Are Name-Brand Drug Makers Liable for Generic Equivalents?

By | Healthcare Law Insights | June 27, 2013
Are Name-Brand Drug Makers Liable for Generic Equivalents?

On June 13, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued an order announcing that it will revisit a controversial January ruling, in which the court held that a name-branded drug maker may be held liable, under Alabama law, for injuries caused by a generic version of its drug, manufactured and distributed by a different company.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

The Worst Supreme Court Cases of 2013 for Consumers, Employees, and Patients

Back in January 2012, I posted a short item titled, Supreme Court Sets The Tone For 2012 Term: Might Makes Right, in which I recounted how the Supreme Court had begun the 2011-2012 term with two opinions that were great if you own a prison management company or fake credit repair company, but not so great if you were injured by a private prison’s malfeasance or defrauded by a consumer credit company.

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus