Drug & Device Law

AUGUST 26, 2022

After more than a month away at trial, we probably should not have picked a case that hit so close to home, so to speak. 2003) (“[C]ourts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff’s claim is ‘clearly frivolous.’ ”).” Atrium Medical Corp. , — F. 3d –, 2022 WL 3357485 (E.D. Step Two, S.A. ,

Production 59

Production Testimonials Marketing Trials 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.” 2003), aff’d , 810 N.Y.S.2d For physicians to prescribe such a safer drug, it must reach the market. 2d 506 (N.Y.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

In the middle was In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices. & Plaintiffs will not be heard to argue that they “could have shored up their cases by other means had they known their expert testimony would be found inadmissible.” Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 440, 455-56 (2000). Fru-Con Inc. , 3d 734 (7th Cir.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52