Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Preemption and Generic Drug Liability
To quote Michael Corleone from the forgettable The Godfather: Part III, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” In 2011, we thought we had heard the last from the courts on whether preemption prevented generic drug manufacturers from being held liable under state failure-to-warn statutes. The answer was yes ' preemption exists because manufacturers cannot comply simultaneously with their state duty to adequately warn on the labels and their federal obligation to have the same label as their branded drug counterpart. See PLIVA v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).
The 2011 decision followed the Court's 2009 holding that, regarding branded drug manufacturers, state failure-to-warn lawsuits were not preempted by federal law because branded manufacturers may strengthen the warnings in labels on their own initiative. See Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). Now, the trilogy continues with Fulgenzi v. PLIVA (6th Cir. No. 12-3504, March 13, 2013). While this case has not reached the Supreme Court, it attempts to further define preemption and potential product liability claims against generic drug companies. In short, preemption might not apply in certain cases, as discussed below. The Sixth Circuit pulls us back in. (One month before the Sixth Circuit decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled in a strikingly similar case (same generic drug manufacturer and drug product, but slightly different state-law claims) and rejected the argument that a generic manufacturer could be held liable for failing to update the generic drug label to match a revised brand-name label. Morris v. PLIVA, (5th Cir. No. 12-30319, Feb. 14, 2013). This article focuses on the Fulgenzi ruling.)
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.