Remove 2001 Remove FDA Approval Remove Marketing Remove Trials
article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You The cost of artificially short expiration dates: Worsened shortages, higher costs and more waste

Agency IQ

Samples retained for testing should be kept under similar storage conditions and within the same container-closure system in which the drug is marketed. Such a situation is commonplace in the clinical trial realm, in which investigational drug products which are not already FDA approved are administered to patients.

Science 40
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

What’s worse, the fraud on the FDA claim, if brought under state law, would be preempted by Buckman Co. 341 (2001). Second, as for superiority, PATDC82 II admitted that a class trial would face “enormous logistical hurdles,” but nonetheless found a nationwide class action “superior.” Plaintiffs Legal Committee , 531 U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Yet Another Update on Medical Abortion Litigation: PhRMA’s Amicus Brief in Support of Petition for U.S. Supreme Court Review of the Fifth Circuit Decision

Drug & Device Law

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., See 21 U.S.C.§

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Split Decision

Drug & Device Law

In other words, the generic manufacturers are not allowed to change the FDA-approved label. Nor was a mere trial court free to invent new causes of action. “[I]t is not this Court’s role to adopt novel causes of action. 2001) (“irrespective of the theory of recovery. . . Osmose Wood Preserving , 667 A.2d 906, 909 (D.

article thumbnail

Logical Contradiction Doctrine:  Buckman for Textualists

Drug & Device Law

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. Mensing , 564 U.S. Davidowitz , 312 U.S. Davidowitz , 312 U.S. Davidowitz , 312 U.S.

FDA 72
article thumbnail

California Court Considers Expanding Tort Law in “Duty to Innovate” Case

Drug & Device Law

As a result, they are not claiming a defect in design; they are not claiming that the drug warnings were inadequate; they are not claiming that TDF drugs should be withdrawn from the market; and they agree that TDF drugs have benefited and continue to benefit thousands of patients. So the plaintiffs pivoted. Superior Court , 44 Cal.

article thumbnail

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Claims Targeting a Biologic

Drug & Device Law

Before a biologic may be marketed, the manufacturer must obtain a license from the FDA. 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.” 341 (2001). See 42 U.S.C. § See 21 C.F.R.

FDA 59