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. , 2022) (many other cases recognize this problem with class actions). 3d 1243 (9th Cir.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Pharmacy FDA Doctors 52

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 27, 2022

3d , 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. 2022 WL 17480906, at *1. 2022 WL 17480906, at *2 (emphasis added). 2022 WL 17480906, at *7. Zantac , 2022 WL 17480906, at *14 (citation omitted). “The Zantac , 2022 WL 17480906, at *3 (footnote omitted). 702, and summary judgment entered. Lab Rats – Or at Least A Ratty Lab.

Laboratories 59

Laboratories FDA Production International 59

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

FEBRUARY 25, 2022

We continue to believe that PLAC membership helps pharmaceutical and medical device defendants litigate stronger (through inter-industry cooperation on shared issues of concern), smarter (through cutting edge CLE and webinars), and more efficiently (utilizing PLAC’s online knowledge base and other resources). Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Drugs Pharmaceuticals 59

Drug & Device Law

DECEMBER 26, 2023

Testimony by expert witnesses. First, the Committee found it necessary to “emphasize” both the court’s role and the burden of proof. “[E]xpert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets the admissibility requirements set forth in the rule.”

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Government Production Pharmaceuticals 52

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 Monsanto Co. ,

Testimonials 105

Testimonials FDA Drugs Vaccine 105

Drug & Device Law

JUNE 6, 2022

Thus a confident learned intermediary’s testimony will defeat causation as a matter of law by stating that, notwithstanding a poor result, the treatment provided was standard of care, and even in hindsight they would not do anything different. Confident learned intermediaries stand by their medical decisions. caused anything. 3d 87, 95 (Tex.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Pharmaceuticals Treatment 59

Drug & Device Law

APRIL 18, 2022

2022 WL 1016686 (Wis. April 5, 2022) (per curiam). The trial court granted summary judgment based on evidence that the implanting surgeon “would have used the clips in the surgery even if he had received such a warning” and thus plaintiff “could not prove the cause element of his claims.” 2022 WL 1016686, at *4.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production FDA Approval FDA 59

Drug & Device Law

FEBRUARY 20, 2023

The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceutical company to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 3d , 2022 WL 6225596 (S.D. 3d , 2022 WL 6225596 (S.D. 2022 WL 6225661, at *5 (S.D. 4:20-CV-02256, 2022 WL 6225573, at *3 (S.D.

FDA 59

FDA FDA Approval Testimonials Vaccine 59

Drug & Device Law

JULY 25, 2022

2022 WL 2806390 (D. July 18, 2022), including the ultimate result. Cantrell , 2022 WL 2806390 at *1. B]ecause the opinions in [the expert’s] report pertain only to transvaginal implantation, [the] testimony would be unhelpful to a jury. Accordingly the court grants [the] motion to exclude [the expert’s] testimony.”

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Production Packaging Marketing 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 4, 2024

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.” His inability to produce admissible expert testimony is due to his own actions, namely the failure of his proposed experts to test their alternatives. Weisgram v.

Testimonials 52

Testimonials Production Vaccine Pharmaceuticals 52

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 28, 2022

2022 WL 614919 (S.D. March 2, 2022), the court held that the expert “cannot take the final step of opining that the product was ‘misbranded’ or ‘adulterated,’ as these are impermissible legal conclusions.” Ohio Aug. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In Robinson v. Ethicon, Inc. So we ran a search. High on the list was Tsao v.

Testimonials 59

Testimonials FDA Regulations Production 59

Drug & Device Law

MARCH 7, 2023

Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Specifically, the court’s analysis started with the false premise that “[w]hen reliability questions go to the weight of an expert’s proposed testimony rather than admissibility.” of Pennsylvania , 2022 WL 2467080, at *1 (E.D. In Crockett v. LEXIS 29923 (E.D.PA LEXIS 29923 (E.D.PA

Testimonials 59

Testimonials Clinical Trials Trials Clinical Research 59