This Week’s Science Headlines

        Litigation
Continue reading...

Generic Defendants’ PA Preemption Battle Gets Potential Boost from NJ Judge

The issue of generic-drug preemption continues to be one of the key battlegrounds in pharmaceutical product liability litigation. Recently – as we discussed here – the FDA released a proposed rule that, if adopted, would eliminate the broad preemption of failure-to-warn claims against generic pharmaceutical manufacturers established two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing. In the wake of Mensing, multiple courts across the country have taken up efforts by generic pharmaceutical defendants to dismiss failure-to-warn claims, as well…
Continue reading...

Pennsylvania Court Rejects Bid to Reargue Mensing Denial

Last month, we reported on the attempt by several generic manufacturers of metoclopramide to seek reargument before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the issue of whether the claims against them are preempted under the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and its progeny. The generic manufacturers’ bid for reargument was rejected by the Pennsylvania Superior Court last week, meaning that the Superior Court’s prior divided decision that upheld the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the claims as preempted…
Continue reading...

Mensing-Preemption Battle Continues in Pennsylvania as Defendants Seek Reargument of Denial of Appeal

The nationwide battle over federal preemption in connection with generic drugs continues, with manufacturers of generic metoclopramide in Pennsylvania seeking to reargue the denial of their appeal challenging the court’s refusal to find the claims against them preempted. Since the 2011 Supreme Court opinion in PLIVA, Inv. v. Mensing, the issue of preemption in tort suits against manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals has been an important issue. In short, preemption arises under the federal requirement that generic drug labeling must be the same as the…
Continue reading...

Florida Federal Court Allows Claim that Novartis Should Have Issued “Black Box” Warning on Zometa

A United States District Court Judge, sitting in the Middle District of Florida, has rejected arguments by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Novartis”) that federal law would prohibit claims that the company should have added “Black Box” warnings regarding potential side effects of Zometa, including potential bone loss.  As a result, plaintiffs will be allowed to proceed with their claims notwithstanding the company’s arguments (1) that all of the failure-to-warn claims were controlled by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Wyeth vs. Levine; and (2) that…
Continue reading...

New York Federal Court Upholds “Failure to Update” Theory

For those who follow pharmaceutical litigation, the issue of preemption – as discussed primarily by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, as well as in a host of other state and federal court opinions – continues to be an important battleground.  Although most courts have rejected the plaintiffs’ efforts to pursue failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers, based on the generic drug makers’ federal law “duty of sameness,” under which a warning label for a…
Continue reading...

HHS Proposes to Undo the Supreme Court Rulings in Pliva and Bartlett by Regulation Changes

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011), which affected “75 percent of all prescription drugs dispensed in this country.”  The court held that because the FDA requires generic drug manufacturers to use the same labels and warnings as those of the name-brand manufacturer, state law claims against generic companies regarding labeling and warnings are pre-empted. Put another way, because generic drug manufacturers cannot change their labels or warnings, even if they later learn of additional risks associated…
Continue reading...