The Supreme Court of California is gearing up to decide an important question for the future of product liability law: Do drug manufacturers have a duty to innovate? In other words, does a manufacturer of a non-defective drug...more
An English court has, for the first time, considered whether trained Artificial Neural Networks (“ANNs”) – a component of AI – could qualify for patent protection, or if they would fall under the computer program exclusion,...more
In late 2019, Congress enacted the “CREATES Act”, which established a private right of action in which generic or biosimilar manufacturers may sue an innovator for an injunction and monetary award for not selling samples of...more
In a trio of recent decisions arising out of cases alleging that an antipsychotic medication, Risperdal, and its generic, risperidone, had caused gynecomastia (breast tissue growth) in men, the United States District Court...more
Welcome to our inaugural issue of Product Lines—our e-newsletter focusing on toxic torts and products liability news and issues. As we all know, there are many issues that arise in this complex area of the law every day. We...more
On March 16, 2018, Massachusetts joined a growing minority of states — California, Vermont and Illinois — recognizing innovator liability of name-brand drug manufacturers. Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., SJC-12347, 2018 WL...more
Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made an important ruling concerning innovator liability with respect to pharmaceuticals. Though precluding negligence and traditional product liability claims against brand-name...more
On March 16, 2018, in a matter of first impression in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) joined a minority of states in recognizing a tort theory of “Innovator Liability” – namely, that brand-name drug...more
Before any new product is released into the market, companies should assess its product liability, safety, and compliance. But the launch of an innovative product presents a unique set of challenges: typically, they involve...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court in T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., became the first state high court to recognize the doctrine of “innovator liability,” unanimously holding that brand-name prescription drug...more
Happy spring! This issue includes two articles that challenge conventional thinking. The first, called “Software is Still Patent Eligible,” makes the case that software patents can still be obtained. IP generally accretes in...more
Massachusetts Superior Court Rejects “Innovator Liability” Failureto-Warn Claim, Holds Branded Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Owed No Duty to Plaintiff Alleging Injury From Equivalent Generic Drug That Copied Defendant’s...more
Eight years ago, in Conte v. Wyeth, the California Court of Appeals shocked brand prescription drug manufacturers when it held that they could be liable for injuries caused by generic versions of their medications — an...more
FDA’s delay on the final version of generic labelling rules until April 2017 means both branded and generic drug manufacturers face continued uncertainty. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced it...more
Dear Client - Coming to a court near you (and soon): In our first article, “The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What You Need to Know,” we highlight upcoming changes that will impact discovery...more
I. Introduction - Since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, the plaintiffs’ bar has been feverishly searching for an alternate theory of recovery when the claimant took a generic...more
The America Invents Act established inter partes review and post-grant reviews mechanisms to challenge the validity of issued United States patents. These procedures were created to improve patent quality, and were introduced...more
In the first skirmishes between biosimilar makers and innovator companies, biosimilar makers attempted to bypass the litigation provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) through the...more
Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states, loosely, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A force exerted by one body upon another causes an equal reaction by the second body. Want an...more