Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Product Liability Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Preemption and Generic Drug Liability

By Alan Minsk and Kelley Nduom

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 Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.