Codon

NOVEMBER 24, 2024

The second federal restraint on reproductive technology is a 2015 ban on the FDA from considering any new drug applications involving the genetic modification of human embryos. while it proceeds elsewhere. The widespread use of questionable reproductive treatments is partially due to the unique legal context of IVF. Since IVF in the U.S.

Regulations 62

Regulations DNA Hospitals Trials 62

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 15, 2024

As the DDL blog has previously reported , Michigan’s longstanding presumption of non-defectiveness applicable to FDA-approved drugs was recently repealed by the Michigan legislature in S.B. As this provision is newly applicable to FDA-approved products, it has not been tested by the courts on this issue. Lynch & Co.

Production 52

Production FDA Approval FDA Compliance 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 11, 2024

Congress created an FDA approval process that is both rigorous and thorough, and pharmaceutical companies invest billions of dollars in research and development to meet FDA’s scientific standards. Biased litigants (and equally biased judges) cannot be allowed to second-guess FDA product determinations. Buckman Co.

FDA 59

FDA Production FDA Approval Regulations 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 12, 2024

The FDA approved the defendant’s first TDF drug in 2001, and the company started its first clinical trial on a different compound—tenofovir alafenamide (“TAF”)—about a year later. The court also assumed that physicians naturally would prescribe the “newer” TAF once the FDA approved it. at *48-*50. at *31, *32.

FDA Approval 105

FDA Approval Drugs Production FDA 105

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 4, 2024

The Complaint further alleges that data collected and submitted in support of full (as opposed to emergency use) FDA approval demonstrated the misleading nature of earlier statements. The FDA, however, did not and does not share that belief. FDA (8/23/21) press release (emphasis original). Health & Safety C.

Vaccine 59

Vaccine FDA FDA Approval Production 59

Drug & Device Law

NOVEMBER 2, 2023

Qualifying compounding pharmacies do not require FDA approval to sell compounded drugs. The defendant in Zyla is a qualifying compounding pharmacy that sells without FDA approval a compounded product containing the active ingredient found in the plaintiff manufacturer’s FDA-approved product. Mukasey , 536 F.3d

Compounding Pharmacies 59

Compounding Pharmacies Pharmacy FDA Approval FDA 59

Drug & Device Law

OCTOBER 20, 2023

FDA/Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. LLC litigation, in which an anti-abortion group is seeking to invalidate regulatory actions taken by the FDA with regard to mifepristone , a pharmaceutical FDA-approved for use in the termination of pregnancy to ten weeks, in combination with misoprostol. Danco Labs.,

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Clinical Trials Pharmaceuticals 59

Drug & Device Law

OCTOBER 10, 2023

341 (2001). 2013), the court held that plaintiff could not “bring a claim that rests solely on the non-disclosure to patients of facts tied to the scope of [FDA] approval.” Finding non-disclosure different than, for example, a claim premised on false assertions of FDA approval. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm. ,

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Pharmacy Regulations 59

Drug & Device Law

OCTOBER 6, 2023

341 (2001), (2) impossibility preemption barring “stop selling” claims under Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. 379r, should preclude some (but hardly all) state abortion-related bans – particularly when states purport to target the availability of FDA-approved drugs for their FDA-approved indications. .

FDA Approval 64

FDA Approval FDA Production Drugs 64

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 22, 2023

341 (2001), recognized that any state-law claim that depends on the existence of the FDCA is impliedly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 379r(e) product liability savings clause Id. at 1283-87. It provides: [A]ll such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of this chapter shall be by and in the name of the United States.

Drugs 105

Drugs Regulations Production FDA Approval 105

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023

FDA, CDER, “Guidance for Industry − Medical Device Reporting − Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) Program, 2000 WL 34503093, at *1 (Oct. Medical device manufacturers could “request[ FDA] approval to participate in the ASR program.” Id. 341 (2001). Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.

FDA 59

FDA Regulations FDA Approval Production 59

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023

In our line of work, much of what we do depends on the continuing validity of how the FDA regulates prescription medical products. 341 (2001), is so important. It prevents plaintiffs in prescription medical product liability litigation from making collateral attacks on in-force FDA decisions. That’s why Buckman Co.

FDA Approval 59

FDA Approval FDA Doctors Production 59

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 1, 2023

The FDA approved the defendant’s first TDF drug in 2001, and the company started its first clinical trial on a different compound—tenofovir alafenamide (“TAF”)— about a year later. So the plaintiffs pivoted.

Production 64

Production Marketing Drugs Pharma Companies 64

Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 28, 2023

In our line of work, much of what we do depends on the continuing validity of what the FDA does with respect to prescription medical products. 341 (2001), is so important. It prevents plaintiffs in prescription medical product liability litigation from making collateral attacks on in-force FDA decisions.

FDA 52

FDA FDA Approval Doctors Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

What’s worse, the fraud on the FDA claim, if brought under state law, would be preempted by Buckman Co. 341 (2001). (“Plaintiffs do not, however, seek to recover economic or non-economic damages caused by any person’s actual ingestion” of the drug.). Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. You can see where this is going.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

But in prescription medical product liability litigation, products must receive FDA approval, clearance or other authorization (hereafter, collectively referred to as “approval” for short) before they can be marketed. to determine whether a proposed alternative drug would have received FDA approval.” at 237-38.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 30, 2023

341 (2001), with the rejection of the so-called “purposes and objectives” prong of implied preemption by the most conservative justices (at least in terms of federalism) on the Court. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S. Albrecht , 139 S.Ct.

FDA 72

FDA Regulations Production Government 72

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 9, 2023

341, 352 (2001) (“neither an express pre-emption provision nor a saving clause bars the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles”). In examining the law applicable to OTC drugs, ASH-ADHD ignored what the applicable FDA regulations state, in favor of what they don’t state. Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.

Regulations 59

Regulations FDA Nurses FDA Approval 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 30, 2022

When you hear Class III medical device product liability case, you should look for all claims to be dismissed unless there is something as unusual as a basis to claiming the plaintiff’s particular device deviated from its FDA-approved specifications.

FDA 59

FDA Regulations FDA Approval Production 59

Drug & Device Law

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

Approval of an application “constitute[s] a determination” by the FDA “that … the product meet[s] applicable requirements to ensure the continued safety … of such products.” Once approved, a biologics label generally may not be changed without prior FDA approval. 341 (2001). Albrecht , 139 S.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Licensing Licensing 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 31, 2022

In other words, the generic manufacturers are not allowed to change the FDA-approved label. 2001) (“irrespective of the theory of recovery. . . The generic manufacturers must establish that the generic label is the same as the brand name label to fulfill its duty of sameness. E.g. , Ford Motor Co. 2d 362, 370 (Md.

Government 52

Government Production FDA Approval FDA 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 10, 2022

341 (2001), impliedly preempts claims based on California’s Sherman Act, which adopts the FDCA as state law. The court explained that “[b]ecause the technique” used by the manufacturer to calculate protein content “is FDA-approved, the statement cannot be considered misleading within the meaning of the [FDCA].” 343-1(a)(5)).

Regulations 52

Regulations FDA Packaging FDA Approval 52