Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ever Shifting Landscape in Prescription Drug Design Defect Litigation
Aside from preemption, it is quite possible that no legal doctrine has caused more angst to both sides of the pharmaceutical product liability bar, and in turn, the courts, than the interplay of negligence versus strict liability and the viability of a design defect claim against manufacturers of FDA-approved prescription drugs. At the heart of this debate is “comment k” of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a provision written almost 50 years ago by the American Law Institute (ALI). See Restatement (Second) of Torts ' 402A, comment k (1965).
In the past year, two much-anticipated decisions, one from the U.S. Supreme Court and one from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, stand at opposite ends of the spectrum on the viability of design defect claims against manufacturers of prescription drugs. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), holding that state law design defect claims against generic manufacturers of prescription drugs are preempted under federal law. This past January, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Lance v. Wyeth, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 205 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2014), holding that design defect claims grounded in negligence can proceed against manufacturers of prescription drugs, side-stepping 20-year-old precedent barring strict liability design defect claims under Pennsylvania law.
This article reviews the impact of these decisions, and what may lie ahead.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?