Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
WV Supreme Court Invokes Learned Intermediary Doctrine
Last year, pharmaceutical companies reportedly spent $4.5 billion on direct advertising to consumers, or about 400 times more than they spent 20 years ago. Drug company spending on advertising to consumers is increasing twice as fast as spending on promotions to physicians or on the research and development of new drugs. Given this exponential growth in direct-to-consumer advertising, it is hardly surprising that prescription drug makers' traditional immunity from consumer 'failure-to-warn' claims has increasingly come under assault. Although many courts have resisted calls from the plaintiffs' bar to allow such claims, recent decisions have created uncertainty about the future.
The 'Learned Intermediary Doctrine'
Under the 'learned intermediary doctrine,' drug manufacturers are not liable for failing to warn consumers of risks associated with prescription drugs as long as they disclose those risks to doctors. The New Jersey Supreme Court held in a landmark decision eight years ago that this rule did not protect drug manufacturers when they advertise directly to consumers. Perez v. Wyeth Labs. Inc., 734 A.2d 1245 (N.J. 1999). More dramatically, in June of this year, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals rejected the learned intermediary doctrine in its entirety, on the ground that direct-to-consumer advertising made the rule 'outdated.' Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, No. 33211, 2007 WL 1888777, at *8 (W.Va. June 27, 2007). Time will tell whether Perez and Johnson & Johnson are harbingers of things to come.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?