By taking a look at Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., 2026 WL 1993146 (11th Cir. July 10, 2026), that makes this the third straight week in which we are pleased with a sensible vaccine decision. In this published case, the Eleventh
Drug & Device Law
The definitive source for intelligent commentary on the law that matters for drug and device product liability cases
Drug & Device Law is a blog published by the Drug & Device Law Blogging Team that focuses on legal issues surrounding prescription drugs and medical devices. It covers topics such as product liability litigation, regulatory compliance, FDA approval processes, preemption doctrines, class action lawsuits, and statutes of limitations relevant to drug and device manufacturers. The blog discusses court decisions involving manufacturing defects, failure to warn claims, fraudulent joinder and misjoinder, and pricing program litigation like the 340B drug pricing program. It also addresses procedural and jurisdictional issues in multidistrict litigation and state versus federal court matters related to drug and device law.
Latest from Drug & Device Law - Page 7
The Perils of Suing the FDA to Avoid Preemption
There is a well-worn saying in electrical engineering — if you want to break a circuit, you can cut the wire or trip the breaker. Plaintiffs in several consolidated spinal-cord stimulator cases recently tried something more creative — they attempted…
Mistakes of Law as Fraud – A 50-State Survey
Not too long ago we wrote about McKenzie v. Progressive Treatment Solutions, LLC, 2026 WL 636741 (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2026). One of the things about McKenzie that caught our eye was the statement that, under Illinois law, “misrepresentations or…
Pedicle Screw Robots (and some World Cup)
You’ve probably noticed there’s been a lot of soccer going on recently. We don’t purport to be experts on the “beautiful game,” but every four years we find ourselves riveted by a sport we don’t always watch and sometimes don’t…
More on Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (Or, Don’t Let Good Supreme Court Precedent Go to Waste)
We’ve re-read Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, 609 U.S. ___, 2026 LX 336645, 2026 WL 1825691 (June 25, 2026) (“Durnell”), a few times over the past few weeks. As Bexis noted in his quick-out-of-the gate (and great) analysis,…
Vaccine Claim Flunks General Causation
This makes two weeks in a row with vaccine cases. Last week we discussed yet another Constitutional challenge against mandatory vaccination. This week we look at Nguyen v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 2026 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1650 (U.S.…
The More Things Change, The More Lohr Stays the Same — But It Shouldn’t
There’s an old joke about a guy who keeps banging his head against the wall. When asked why, he says: Because it feels so good when I stop. That’s roughly how we feel about watching defendants in medical device cases…
Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal Where Judicially Noticed Facts Contradict the Complaint
Late last year, when we were putting together our massive post that collected and categorized every case that had ever judicially noticed an FDA document, we ran across the intriguing proposition that in deciding Rule 12 pleading-based motions, “allegations in…
Guest Post − Texas Supreme Court’s “One Step” Grants A Distributor Interlocutory Review Regarding Non-Manufacturing Seller Immunity Statute
Today’s guest post is by Kevin Hara, of Reed Smith, who is pinch-hitting for Steve Boranian. His post today discusses the Texas Supreme Court’s procedural reversal of a lower court’s refusal to hear an interlocutory appeal concerning application…
An Ultra Processed Complaint Fails
This post comes from the non-RS and non-Dechert side of the Blog.
The great post-modern existentialist philosopher John Madden once said, “If you have two quarterbacks, you actually have no quarterback.” This was not the result of a fanciful math…