Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 21, 2023

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. , The decision simply ignored the minuscule increased risk, and didn’t compare it to the risks of any alternative treatment – or to the risks of leaving the disease, diabetes, untreated. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Avoiding barnyard expletives – we shoveled Shikada here. 3d , 2023 WL 4191651 (C.D.

FDA Approval 52

FDA Approval FDA Drugs Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JULY 24, 2023

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. PATDC82 I , 943 F.3d 3d at 1251.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

JANUARY 15, 2024

at 526 (citation omitted). “[R]esearch and innovation in medical equipment and treatment would be inhibited.” Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 2019), analogously held that the standard for admission of expert testimony was “procedural” and therefore Pennsylvania’s Frye rule applied, not Texas’ stricter expert admissibility standard.

Compliance 52

Compliance Government FDA Compliance Production 52

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 1, 2023

We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “ Frye ” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this: Rule 702. E.g. , Walsh v. BASF Corp. , 3d 446, 461 (Pa.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Trials Science Government 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 29, 2023

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.

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

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. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC , 562 U.S. McNeil-PPC, Inc.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

MAY 30, 2022

The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. That oncologists prescribing lifesaving standard-of-care treatment in the face of “aggressive cancer” are not impressed by a risk of – permanent hair loss – is not surprising. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ,

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Doctors Production Laboratories 59