DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s non-obviousness determination, the district court again found that Teva failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claims of Janssen’s patent...more
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase Inc. v. Bielski is not limited to interlocutory appeals involving arbitration....more
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in American Hospital Association et al. v. Becerra et al., a case that involves the proper method for the Medicare program to reimburse hospitals for outpatient drugs...more
We have written before about the Supreme Court’s impossibility preemption decision, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019) (Albrecht) (here, here, here, and here), highlighting some open questions and...more
The premier event for drug and medical device product liability lawyers to gain essential winning litigation strategies. ACI’s 26th Annual Flagship Conference on Drug and Medical Device Litigation is returning to New York...more
Update: On redetermination, Health Canada issued a new notice of compliance for RUZURGI on June 24, 2021. Catalyst and Kye have sought judicial review (Court File No T-1047-21). On May 31, 2021, the Federal Court quashed a...more
UPDATE: On January 13, 2021, the Minister of Health refused the application on reconsideration. Viiv sought but later discontinued a second application for judicial review (T-258-21). In a decision dated July 10, 2020,...more
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+...more
BUT FOR A CLERICAL ERROR TO BE ADDRESSED ON REMAND, THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS FINDINGS OF INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Case Name: INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS...more
After years of limited guidance, the Supreme Court has finally provided direction to lower courts on the issue of preemption when they delivered their opinion in Merck v. Albrecht. “Preemption” is a common defense used by...more
In Part Two of this two-part series on recent developments in pharmacy law and the 340B drug pricing program, Richard Church and Ryan Severson discuss several recent developments related to the 340B drug pricing program,...more
Merck v. Albrecht: Impossibility Preemption Defense as a Question of Law and Guidance on the “Clear Evidence” Standard. A decade ago in Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court held that drug manufacturers, when faced with...more
For some long-awaited events, a little time and distance can add a measure of clarity. Not always – many still are processing the Game of Thrones finale, with no end in sight. But over the past few weeks pharmaceutical...more
The United States Supreme Court finally clarified its 11-year-old “clear evidence” standard for pharmaceutical preemption. In its much-anticipated opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court unanimously reversed the Third...more
A federal district court has ruled, for a second time, in favor of hospitals challenging the legality of Medicare payment cuts targeting certain hospitals in the 340B drug pricing program. In a May 6, 2019 decision, the U.S....more
The US Supreme Court held on May 20 that a judge, not a jury, must decide the question of whether federal law prohibited drug manufacturers from adding warnings to the drug label that would satisfy state law. To succeed on a...more
Opinion highlights importance of a "clear" record at FDA - On 20 May the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal preemption questions arising under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) are for a...more
Following confusion from a 2009 decision, the US Supreme Court on May 20, 2019, decided a significant impossibility preemption case. This new decision will change the dynamics of litigation involving the impossibility...more
The Situation: Name-brand pharmaceutical manufacturers are often sued with claims that they should have strengthened the warnings on their labels, even where (as here) the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not allow...more
Last week, in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, the Supreme Court continued its explication of the balance between state law tort liability that can be imposed on drug makers and the extent to which this liability can be...more
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court found that a judge is better suited than a jury to decide if consumers’ tort claims are preempted by federal regulations. In the case, Merck Sharp & Dome, Corp. v. Albreecht, the...more
On May 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its latest opinion on preemption in cases involving prescription medications, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290 (U.S. May 20, 2019). ...more
On May 6, 2019, a federal district court held that the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 2018 and 2019 rate reductions for 340B Program participants, including safety net On May 6, 2019, a federal district court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its potentially most significant preemption decision in several years, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albright, 587 U.S. ____ (2019), reversing what some had dubbed the worst drug and device...more
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290, holding that the judge, not the jury, must decide whether state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by...more