Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Colacicco v. Apotex: A New Era in Prescription Drug Pre-emption
Prescription drug manufacturers have unsuccessfully asserted pre-emption as a defense to product liability claims for decades. A new FDA final rule and the first federal case interpreting that rule indicate that the tide may be turning. On May 25, 2006, Judge Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued his opinion in Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D. Pa. 2006). The decision is the first federal court opinion discussing the pre-emptive effect of the preamble to the FDA's final rule on prescription drug labeling (the 'preamble'). See 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934 (Jan. 24, 2006). See Lasker article infra at 5.
In Colacicco, the court dismissed the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims against generic and brand name drug companies, based on its determination that it was required to defer to the FDA's statements on pre-emption in the preamble and in an amicus brief filed in the case. In a notable alternative holding, the court also found that a brand name drug manufacturer owes no duty to a plaintiff who took only the generic version of a prescription drug. The lengthy, detailed opinion, which is currently on appeal to the Third Circuit, has been labeled 'profoundly wrong' by members of plaintiffs' bar and is certain to be widely cited in prescription drug cases around the country. See Brief of Amicus Curiae the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Pre-emption), Woodward v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 05-CV-3764, at 3 (E.D. Pa. filed June 8, 2006). To understand the court's reasoning and the scope of the opinion, it is necessary to discuss the FDA preamble and history of the case.
FDA Preamble
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
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.