Features
John Gaal's Ethics Corner
Your ethics questions answered by the expert.
Features
Recent Developments from Around the States
National cases of interest to your practice.
Addressing the Conflict: FDA vs. Torts
Our legal system supports two regulators of the safety of prescription drugs ' the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and courts applying the tort liability regime. The FDA's mission, while narrowly circumscribed in its early years, grew dramatically over the last half of the twentieth century. Today, the FDA administers the most comprehensive drug regulatory system in the world.
Eli Lilly Joins Others in Limiting Sales to Canada
In October, Eli Lilly and Co. became the latest drug manufacturer to announce that it will begin limiting quantities of pharmaceutical products shipped to Canadian wholesalers.
Fen-Phen Again
Nearly 83,000 Fen-Phen users, including those whose claims have already been approved, may have their payments delayed or denied due to a new scheme instituted by the trustees of the Wyeth Settlement Trust, according to a lawsuit filed Nov. 5 by New York City-based law firm Napoli, Kaiser, Bern & Associates. The suit was filed on behalf of several individuals who are awaiting payment of damages from the trust, formerly known as The American Home Products Settlement Trust.
Features
News from the FDA
All the latest FDA news and information you need to know.
Features
Case Briefing
The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
The Off-Label Divide
Is it ever appropriate for a drug manufacturer to disseminate information about an off-label use of a drug? If so, when is it inappropriate? Is the dissemination of such information commercial speech protected by the First Amendment that cannot be proscribed by the FDA? Can manufacturers be held accountable for this speech by the FDA or in a products liability action?
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
