Remove 2011 Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Pharmacy Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Another RICOdiculous Decision

Drug & Device Law

We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceutical companies. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. , Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , 3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1 (highlights). 3d at 1247. 3d , 2023 WL 4191651 (C.D.

article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.

article thumbnail

The FDA and Feasible Alternative Designs

Drug & Device Law

223, 238 (2011), the United States Supreme Court reacted to a plaintiff’s unconstrained claims of “alternative” vaccine design: [T]he [design] decision is surely not an easy one. In at least the short term, a popular pain reliever would have to be removed from pharmacies. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S. at 164 (quoting Wolfe v.

FDA 59