Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
|
|
- Kerry Holmes
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Number 522 July 18, 2006 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Second Circuit Finds State Common Law Claims Involving FDA Premarket Approved Medical Devices Preempted Riegel is a significant decision for medical device manufacturers because it increases the number of states in which common law claims involving premarket approved devices are foreclosed. The Second Circuit recently joined the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits in holding that Section 360k(a) of the 1976 Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 USC 301, et seq., preempts certain state common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market through the Food and Drug Administration s premarket approval (PMA) process. See Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., 2006 WL , Case No CV (2d Cir. May 16, 2006). Consistent with the majority of Circuit Courts that have considered the issue, the Second Circuit found that product liability claims alleging liability as to a PMA-approved device regardless of the manufacturer s adherence to the PMA process such as claims for strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligent design, testing, inspection, distribution, labeling, marketing and sale claims impose different requirements on a manufacturer than those imposed by the FDA, and are therefore preempted. By contrast, product liability claims seeking damages based on a manufacturer s alleged departure from the PMA approval standards, such as negligent manufacturing, do not fall within the scope of the FDCA s preemption provision. The Medical Device Amendments Premarket Approval The Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA were enacted in 1976 to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use. The Amendments group medical devices into three categories Classes I, II and III. Class I and II devices, ranging from elastic bandages to powered wheelchairs, are subject to fewer FDA controls than Class III devices. Class III devices are those that either present[] a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury or are for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health. 21 USC 360c(a)(1)(C)(ii). Devices that are classified as Class III devices must be approved by the FDA before being marketed. The two most common avenues for obtaining FDA approval of Class III medical devices are the 510(k) process and PMA. The 510(k) process applies to devices shown to be substantially equivalent to devices that entered the market prior to the 1976 Medical Device Amendments and were not subject to FDA approval if a manufacturer Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. Copyright 2006 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved.
2 establishes that a new device is substantially equivalent to one that is already on the market, the manufacturer may market the new device without going through the lengthy premarket approval process. If no substantial equivalent exists for a new device, the 510(k) process is not an option, and the device must obtain premarket approval. The PMA process requires a manufacturer to submit a detailed PMA application to the FDA containing, among other things: reports of all clinical and non-clinical studies of the safety and effectiveness of the device; a statement of the device s components; ingredients, properties and principles of operation of the device; a description of the methods used in the manufacture and processing of the device; details regarding any marketing of the device; information about performance standards; samples of proposed labeling; and any other information requested by the FDA. 21 CFR After reviewing the PMA application, the FDA has authority to approve, deny, or impose modifications the FDA may issue: an approval order indicating that the device meets the requirements for approval under the FDCA; an approvable letter informing the manufacturer that it believes the device will be approved if the manufacturer agrees to certain conditions; a not approvable letter describing the deficiencies in the application; or an order denying approval. 21 CFR (c). Once the FDA approves a PMA application, the applicant must comply with the approval order, which contains conditions to approval. 21 CFR In addition, any subsequent changes that may affect the safety or effectiveness of the device must be submitted to the FDA for approval, through a PMA supplement. 21 CFR (a). Section 360k(a) In addition to setting forth the procedure for obtaining premarket approval of medical devices, the Medical Device Amendments contain an express preemption clause, which states, in relevant part: [N]o state or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter. 21 USC 360k(a). The Act does not define the term requirement, making it unclear whether Congress intended the provision to preempt state common law claims. The FDA s regulations on preemption provide that state requirements are preempted only when the FDA has established specific requirements applicable to a particular device. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 360k(a) in 1996 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 US 470 (1996). Medtronic v. Lohr In Lohr, the Supreme Court considered whether Section 360k(a) preempts state common law claims involving medical devices that have entered the market through the 510(k) notification process. The plaintiff in Lohr brought claims for negligence and strict liability against Number 522 July 18, 2006
3 Medtronic after a pacemaker equipped with the company s Model 2011 pacemaker lead failed and the plaintiff was required to undergo emergency surgery. The Justices unanimously agreed that the plaintiffs design defect claims were not preempted because the 510(k) process merely establishes whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a pre-1976 device and does not, therefore, impose any pre-empting federal requirements on the new device. Lohr, 518 US at 494, 507, 513. With respect to the plaintiffs manufacturing and labeling claims, however, the Court was divided. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer (writing separately) concluded that these claims were not preempted because the FDA manufacturing and labeling requirements that covered the device at issue were general, rather than device-specific. In other words, these Justices held that Section 360k(a) s reference to requirements applicable under the Act means that only devicespecific FDA requirements can give rise to preemption. Lohr, 518 US at 500. Justices Rehnquist, O Connor, Scalia and Thomas disagreed, concluding that any FDA requirements, whether general or device-specific, give rise to preemption. Id. at The Justices also disagreed on the broader question of whether common law duties may ever constitute requirements for purposes of preemption under Section 360k(a). Although Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg declined to decide this issue, they made their opinion clear that few, if any, common law duties have been preempted by the provision and that it would be rare, indeed to find such a state action that falls within the statute s parameters. Id. at As to the state claims at issue in Lohr, they held that they were not specifically developed with respect to medical devices, and did not therefore constitute requirements under the preemption provision. By contrast, Justices O Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas found that, as with state statutes and regulations, common law actions do impose requirements on manufacturers, and are preempted by Section 360k(a) to the extent they are different from, or in addition to, FDCA requirements applicable to a device. Id. at 512. While Justice Breyer declined to join Justice O Connor s decision, he agreed that the word requirement may be read as including the legal requirements that grow out of the application, in particular circumstances, of a State s tort law. Id. at 504. Post-Lohr Preemption of Claims Involving PMA Devices Although the Lohr Court did not address the preemption of state claims involving devices entering the market through the PMA process, the majority of courts that have addressed this question since Lohr have relied on the Court s interpretation of Section 360k(a) in holding that such claims are preempted. The Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have all held that approval through the PMA process, unlike the 510(k) process, amounts to a federal device-specific requirement, and that common law tort actions alleging liability as to a premarket approved device regardless of the manufacturer s adherence to the PMA process conflict with that requirement, and are therefore preempted. See Horn v. Thoratec Corp., 376 F.3d 163, (3d Cir. 2004); Martin v. Medtronic, Inc., 254 F.3d 573, (5th Cir. 2001); Brooks v. Howmedica, Inc., 273 F.3d 785, (8th Cir. 2001); Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216, (6th Cir. 2000); Mitchell v. Collagen Corp., 126 F.3d 902, (7th Cir. 1997). The Eleventh Circuit is the only exception. In Goodlin v. Medtronic Inc., 3 Number 522 July 18, 2006
4 the Court concluded that the PMA process represents nothing more than a finding by the FDA that the manufacturer s proposal to market a device has reasonably assured the FDA of the device s safety and effectiveness, and does not provide any indication of what (if any) specific substantive requirements the FDA may have applied to reach its determination. Thus, the Court in Goodlin held that state claims involving PMA devices are not preempted because premarket approval does not constitute a federal requirement within the meaning of Section 360k(a). See Goodlin v. Medtronic, Inc., 167 F.3d 1367, 1377 (11 th Cir. 1999). Riegel v. Medtronic The Second Circuit considered the same issue in Riegel, and joined the majority in holding that state claims relating to PMA approved devices may be preempted. Factual and Procedural Background The device at issue in Riegel was Medtronic s Evergreen Balloon Catheter, a device used to open clogged arteries during angioplasties performed on patients with coronary heart disease. The FDA originally approved the catheter as a medical device through the PMA process on August 30, PMA supplements relating to the product s labeling were approved on April 27, 1995 and April 18, On May 10, 1996, Plaintiff Charles Riegel underwent a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, during which his physician used Medtronic s catheter. The physician inserted the catheter into a damaged artery multiple times before it burst, and Mr. Riegel lost consciousness and was required to undergo emergency coronary bypass surgery. Mr. Riegel survived the incident, but claimed in his complaint that he suffered severe and permanent personal injuries and disabilities. Mr. Riegel and his wife sued Medtronic in the Northern District of New York for negligence in the design, testing, inspection, manufacture, distribution, labeling, marketing and sale of the Evergreen Balloon Catheter; strict liability; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; and loss of consortium. Medtronic moved for summary judgment on all claims on the ground that they were preempted by Section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA. On March 14, 2002, the District Court granted Medtronic s motion with respect to the strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and most of the negligence claims, but the Court let stand the Riegels breach of express warranty and negligent manufacturing claims. After discovery, Medtronic moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. On December 2, 2003, the District Court granted Medtronic s motion, holding that Medtronic was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each claim. The Riegels appealed both the District Court s March 14, 2002 and December 2, 2003 decisions. Relying on the stringent premarket approval process, the explicit preemption provision of the Medical Device Amendments, and the Supreme Court s decision in Medtronic v. Lohr, the Second Circuit affirmed both orders, and entered summary judgment on all claims. Interpretation and Application of Lohr Writing for the majority, Judge Pooler interpreted Lohr as setting forth two main principles for determining whether a common law tort action involving a medical device is preempted by Section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments. First, the court must consider whether there are any devicespecific federal requirements covering Number 522 July 18, 2006
5 the device at issue. If so, the court must determine whether the liability-creating premises of the plaintiff s state-law tort claims impose requirements that are different from or in addition to those federal requirements. Riegel, at *10. The majority in Riegel concluded that approval through the PMA process, unlike the 510(k) process, amounts to a federal device-specific requirement. The Court emphasized that the PMA process requires a manufacturer to provide reasonable assurance of a device s safety and effectiveness and denotes FDA approval of a new device, neither of which is the case for the 510(k) process. In addition, the PMA process expressly gives the FDA the authority to require a device to take a particular form in order to be approved as safe and effective. Once the device has been approved, the manufacturer cannot make any changes that might affect its safety and effectiveness without further FDA approval. Thus, the Court concluded that a device that has gone through the PMA process is subject to the federal, device-specific requirement of adhering to the standards contained in its individual, federally approved PMA. Riegel, at *12. Having determined that the catheter at issue in Riegel was subject to a federal device-specific requirement within the meaning of Section 360k(a), the Court proceeded to consider whether the Riegels claims would, if successful, result in state requirements that differed from or were greater than the PMA standards. The Court concluded that claims for strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligent design, testing, inspection, distribution, labeling, marketing and sale constitute state requirements for purposes of preemption under Section 360k(a). In reaching its decision, the majority emphasized that the liability-creating premise of all of these claims is that the Evergreen Balloon Catheter itself, in its present PMA-approved form, is in some way defective and therefore requires modification. Riegel at *15. A jury verdict in the Riegels favor on any of these claims would represent a finding that the [catheter] had not adhered to the various state common law duties implicated by those claims, e.g., that its design did not comport with the duty of due care or that its labeling did not comport with the duty to warn, which would differ from the FDA s approval of the device as safe and effective. Thus, the Court held that each of these claims fell within the parameters of Section 360k(a). However, the Court reached the opposite result with respect to the Riegels negligent manufacturing claim. Because the negligent manufacturing claim was based on the allegation that the particular catheter deployed during the Plaintiff s angioplasty was not manufactured in accordance with the PMA-approved standards, the Court found that it did not impose additional requirements on Medtronic. If the Riegels negligent manufacturing claim was successful, Medtronic would merely be required to compensate them for deviating from the PMA standards. The Court summarized its holding as follows: [T]ort claims that are premised on a manufacturer s deviation from the standards set forth in the device s approved PMA application such as the Riegels negligent manufacturing claim are in no way preempted. Only those claims that allege liability despite a PMA-approved device s adherence to those standards are, pursuant to this decision, preempted. Riegel, at *17. Conclusion Riegel is a significant decision for medical device manufacturers because it increases the number of states in which common law claims involving Number 522 July 18, 2006
6 premarket approved devices are foreclosed. Although the vast majority of medical devices entering the market today do so through the 510(k) notification process, new devices for which Section 510(k) is not an option must be approved through the PMA process, which is lengthy and rigorous and requires a tremendous investment of time and resources. Manufacturers that invest the manpower in preparing and submitting a premarket approval application need to have assurance that they will not be subject to state common law liability after adhering to the FDA s stringent PMA process. Although Riegel does not eliminate all state law claims, it significantly reduces the number of such claims available to plaintiffs, and it further solidifies the validity and effectiveness of preemption as a defense. Office locations: Brussels Chicago Frankfurt Hamburg Hong Kong London Los Angeles Milan Moscow Munich New Jersey New York Northern Virginia Orange County Paris San Diego San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Washington, D.C. Client Alert is published by Latham & Watkins as a news reporting service to clients and other friends. The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorneys listed below or the attorney whom you normally consult. A complete list of our Client Alerts can be found on our Web site at If you wish to update your contact details or customize the information you receive from Latham & Watkins, please visit to subscribe to our global client mailings program. If you have any questions about this Client Alert, please contact Allen M. Gardner or Marguerite M. Sullivan of the Washington, D.C. office or any of the following attorneys. Brussels Jean Paul Poitras +32 (0) Chicago Juli Wilson Marshall Frankfurt Bernd-Wilhelm Schmitz Hamburg Ulrich Börger Hong Kong Joseph A. Bevash London John A. Hull David L. Mulliken Los Angeles Daniel S. Schecter Milan David Miles Moscow Anya Goldin Munich Jörg Kirchner New Jersey Alan E. Kraus New York James V. Kearney Northern Virginia Eric L. Bernthal Orange County Jon D. Anderson Paris Patrick Dunaud +33 (0) San Diego Robert M. Howard San Francisco James K. Lynch Stephen Stublarec Peter A. Wald Shanghai Rowland Cheng Silicon Valley Patrick E. Gibbs Singapore Mark A. Nelson Tokyo Bernard E. Nelson Washington, D.C. Allen M. Gardner Marguerite M. Sullivan Number 522 July 18, 2006
on significant health issues pertaining to their products, and of encouraging the
Number 836 March 17, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Wyeth v. Levine and the Contours of Conflict Preemption Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act The decision in Wyeth reinforces the importance
More informationClient Alert. Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. Introduction
Number 789 20 January 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Rome II and the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Rome II will enable parties doing business across borders to
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. August Term, Argued: December 15, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2006) Docket No cv MEDTRONIC, INC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2005 Argued: December 15, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2006) Docket No. 04-0412-cv CHARLES R. RIEGEL AND DONNA S. RIEGEL, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.,
More informationEconomic Torts Unravelled
Number 599 16 May 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Economic Torts Unravelled Hello! is not just a case about celebrity exclusives and tabloid spoilers, but has important implications
More informationSupreme Court Bars State Common Law Claims Challenging Medical Devices with FDA Pre-Market Approval
report from washi ngton Supreme Court Bars State Common Law Claims Challenging Medical Devices with FDA Pre-Market Approval March 6, 2008 To view THE SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN riegel V. medtronic, Inc.
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-00-RCC Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 0 Richard Stengel, et al., vs. Medtronic, Inc. Plaintiffs, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0--TUC-RCC ORDER
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 600 June 4, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Accessibility Litigation Under the Fair Housing Act This Client Alert provides an overview of the Act, identifies the most important
More informationPreemption Update: The Legal Landscape since Reigel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008) Wendy Fleishman Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Preemption Update: The Legal Landscape since Reigel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008) Wendy Fleishman October 5, 2010 1 I. The Medical Device Amendments Act The Medical Device Amendments of 1976
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 866 May 14, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department The Third Circuit Clarifies the Class Action Fairness Act s Local Controversy Exception to Federal Jurisdiction In addressing
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 665 January 11, 2008 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Virginia Rocket Docket Deemed Proper Venue for Securities Fraud Actions Based Upon Filing of Financial Statements with SEC
More informationClient Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 623 August 30, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Credit/Debit Card Litigation Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) By Mark S. Mester and Livia M. Kiser
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 552 U. S. (2008) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCase 5:05-cv IMK-JSK Document 51 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 43
Case 5:05-cv-00177-IMK-JSK Document 51 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION STEVEN RATTAY, and SHARON RATTAY,
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 802 February 9, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department TARP Special Inspector General Introduces New Initiatives Targeting Recipients of TARP Funds A false response to a LOI could
More informationClient Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 548 October 31, 2006 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 If the defendant uses a famous mark in a way that diminishes the value of the plaintiff
More informationThe Supreme Court's Bright Line Ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. Gives Manufacturers of Defective Medical Devices Broad Immunity
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary Volume 29 Issue 2 Article 7 10-15-2009 The Supreme Court's Bright Line Ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. Gives Manufacturers of Defective
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department. Ninth Circuit Decisions Threaten Market-Based Rate Contracts
Number 580 March 21, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Ninth Circuit Decisions Threaten Market-Based Rate Contracts The Ninth Circuit has redefined how FERC should apply the test in
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 937 September 22, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department The Local Controversy Exception to the Class Action Fairness Act Preston, Kaufman and Coffey An understanding
More informationClient Alert. Background on Discovery Requests under Section 1782
Number 1383 August 13, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Eleventh Circuit Holds That Parties to Private International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals May Seek Discovery Assistance
More informationCase 6:11-cv CEH-TBS Document 43 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID 355 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:11-cv-01444-CEH-TBS Document 43 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID 355 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION PEGGY MCCLELLAND as Personal Representative of the
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 06-179 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONNA S. RIEGEL, individually and as administrator of the estate of Charles R. Riegel, Petitioner, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Respondent. On Writ Of Certiorari
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department. The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements
Number 1044 June 10, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Second Circuit Wades Into the PSLRA Safe Harbor The Lessons of Slayton v. American Express for Forward-Looking Statements Specific,
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 1090 October 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Pending and Future Projects Under CEQA This legislation is intended
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 952 November 4, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Second Circuit Revives Federal Common Law Nuisance Suits Against Greenhouse Gas Emitters in Connecticut
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-40183 Document: 00512886600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RICARDO A. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant Summary Calendar United States
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department
Number 609 June 22, 2007 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Leveling the Playing Field in Mass Tort Litigation: Texas Mass Tort Plaintiffs Required to Present Causation
More informationCOVERING THE COURT S ENTIRE DECEMBER
Issue No. 3 Volume No. 35 November 26, 2007 COVERING THE COURT S ENTIRE DECEMBER CALENDAR OF CASES, INCLUDING BOUMEDIENE ET AL. V. BUSH ET AL. AND AL ODAH ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. Detainees being
More informationFederal Preemption in Class III Medical Device Cases By Donna B. DeVaney and Patrick Hamilton
Product Liability Federal Preemption in Class III Medical Device Cases By Donna B. DeVaney and Patrick Hamilton I. Introduction The Medical Device Amendments ( MDA ), 21 U.S.C. 360c et seq., to the Food,
More informationLatham & Watkins Health Care Practice
Number 878 June 8, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Health Care Practice This initiative represents a continuation and expansion of interagency efforts begun more than two years ago and illustrates an
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments. Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction
Number 1210 July 5, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation and Finance Departments Supreme Court Limits Reach of Non-Article III Courts Jurisdiction Under Article III, the judicial power of the
More information178 S.W.3d 127, *; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5135, ** LEXSEE
Page 1 LEXSEE KEITH BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IAN BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JEAN BAKER, DECEASED, Appellants v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, S.C., INC. AND ST. JUDE MEDICAL,
More informationNEXT DECADE TO-DO: Enforce Preemption for Class II Devices with Special Controls. Luther T. Munford and Erin P. Lane
NEXT DECADE TO-DO: Enforce Preemption for Class II Devices with Special Controls Luther T. Munford and Erin P. Lane 32 The common assumption is that FDA premarket approval of a Class III device is a necessary
More informationCase 2:09-cv LKK-KJM Document 28 Filed 07/09/2009 Page 1 of 20
Case :0-cv-00-LKK-KJM Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARLENE PRUDHEL, RANDALL S. PRUDHEL, BRADLEY K. PRUDHEL, RYAN K. PRUDHEL, and
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. This civil action is before the Court on defendant Coloplast Corporation s motion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE STANLEY ROGER SPIER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No.: 3:14-CV-550-TAV-HBG ) COLOPLAST CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationGlennen v. Allergan, Inc.
Glennen v. Allergan, Inc. GINGER PIGOTT * AND KEVIN COLE ** WHY IT MADE THE LIST Prescription medical device manufacturers defending personal injury actions have a wide variety of legal defenses not available
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 111-cv-04064-AT Document 25 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SHERYL D. CLINE, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION
More informationLatham & Watkins Corporate Department
Number 1171 April 7, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano: Changes in Adverse Event Reporting The Court s refusal to adopt a bright-line rule
More informationDelaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code
Latham & Watkins Number 1467 February 13, 2013 Finance Department Delaware Bankruptcy Court Confirms Lock-Up Agreements Are a Valuable Tool Not a Violation of the Bankruptcy Code Josef S. Athanas, Caroline
More informationCase: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2017
Case: 16-3785 Document: 003112726677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2017 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Rm. 7259 Washington, DC 20530 Tel: (202) 616-5372
More informationClient Alert. Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy
Number 1438 December 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Circuit Courts Weigh In on Treatment of Trademark License Agreements in Bankruptcy Recent bankruptcy appellate rulings have
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Ý» ëæïîó½ªóððêíðóó ܱ½«³»² íé Ú»¼ ðîñðêñïí Ð ¹» ï ±º îè IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PATRICIA CAPLINGER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-12-630-M ) MEDTRONIC,
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1025 May 13, 2010 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pending a decision on BNY s appeal, structured transaction and derivative lawyers should carefully consider the drafting of current
More informationClient Alert. Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice. Background
Number 1447 January 2, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Revisiting Venue: Patriot Coal and the Interest of Justice Steps taken by parties on the eve of filing for bankruptcy are likely
More informationClient Alert. Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant. The Spill Act. Facts of Dimant
Number 1409 October 2, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Department Natural Resource Damages After NJDEP v. Dimant In a unanimous opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held
More informationRecent Developments in Federal Preemption of Pharmaceutical Drug and Medical Device Product Liability Claims. Bryan G. Scott Elizabeth K.
Article originally published in 17 THE DEFENDER, Fall 2009, at 22 (publication of the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys). Recent Developments in Federal Preemption of Pharmaceutical Drug
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1147 February 17, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department The Settlement does not affirm or overturn Judge Peck s controversial decision in the US Litigation barring enforcement of
More informationWith Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. (06-179), the Roberts
Administrative Law and Regulation The Roberts Court Wades into Products Liability Preemption Waters: Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. By Catherine M. Sharkey* With Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. (06-179), the Roberts
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No LISA GOODLIN, Appellant, MEDTRONIC, INC., Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-5801 LISA GOODLIN, v. Appellant, MEDTRONIC, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District
More informationPreemption in Nonprescription Drug Cases
drug and medical device Over the Counter and Under the Radar By James F. Rogers, Julie A. Flaming and Jane T. Davis Preemption in Nonprescription Drug Cases Although it must be considered on a case-by-case
More informationBender's Health Care Law Monthly September 1, 2011
Bender's Health Care Law Monthly September 1, 2011 SECTION: Vol. 2011; No. 9 Federal Pre-Emption Under The Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act From Medtronic, Inc. V. Lohr; Pliva, Inc. V. Mensing By Frederick R.
More informationThe Federal Preemption Battle Has Just Begun
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Federal Preemption Battle Has Just Begun
More informationCASE 0:12-cv PJS-JSM Document 88 Filed 06/18/13 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:12-cv-01717-PJS-JSM Document 88 Filed 06/18/13 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA RICHARD J. PINSONNEAULT, Civil No: 12-1717 (PJS/JSM) v. Plaintiff, ST. JUDE MEDICAL,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1351 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MEDTRONIC, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD STENGEL and MARY LOU STENGEL, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court
More informationUSDA Rulemaking Petition
USDA Rulemaking Petition Sound Horse Conference 2010 Joyce M. Wang Latham & Watkins LLP Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with affiliated limited liability partnerships
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1241 September 28, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Practical Implications of the America Invents Act on United States Patent Litigation This Client Alert addresses the key
More informationHorn v. Thoratec Corp., A "Heartless" Decision: Why Pre-Market Approval Does Not Preempt All State Tort Claims Against Medical Device Manufacturers
St. John's Law Review Volume 80 Issue 2 Volume 80, Spring 2006, Number 2 Article 8 February 2012 Horn v. Thoratec Corp., A "Heartless" Decision: Why Pre-Market Approval Does Not Preempt All State Tort
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,
Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED
More informationNew Federal Initiatives Project. Executive Order on Preemption
New Federal Initiatives Project Executive Order on Preemption By Jack Park* September 4, 2009 The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies www.fed-soc.org Executive Order on Preemption On May
More informationIN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT J.W., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) BAYER CORP., ET AL., ) Opinion filed: December 5, 2017 ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE HONORABLE COUNTY,
More informationNEFF CORP FORM S-8. (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14
NEFF CORP FORM S-8 (Securities Registration: Employee Benefit Plan) Filed 11/21/14 Address 3750 N.W. 87TH AVENUE SUITE 400 MIAMI, FL 33178 Telephone 3055133350 CIK 0001617667 Symbol NEFF SIC Code 7359
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPERIOR COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPERIOR COURT Hillsborough Superior Court Southern District 30 Spring Street Nashua NH 03060 NOTICE OF DECISION DAVID FERRERA, ESQ NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
More informationNO IN THE. CHARLES R. RIEGEL and DONNA S. RIEGEL, Petitioners, v. BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
NO. 06-179 IN THE CHARLES R. RIEGEL and DONNA S. RIEGEL, Petitioners, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
More informationGile v. Optical Radiation Corporation, et al.
1994 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-3-1994 Gile v. Optical Radiation Corporation, et al. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 93-5555 Follow this and
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-1786 STEVEN KALLAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIBA VISION CORPORATION, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More information~upreme ~aurt at t~e ~niteb ~tate~
FILED No. 06-1262 JUN 15 2007 suv~ cou~, u.s. IN THE ~upreme ~aurt at t~e ~niteb ~tate~ KEITH BAKER, Individually, and IAN BAKER, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Jean Baker, Deceased,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTINA MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DJO, L.L.C., a Delaware corporation; DJO INCORPORATED,
More informationCase 0:15-cv BB Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:15-cv-61210-BB Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/19/2015 Page 1 of 18 JOSEPH T. MINK, v. Plaintiff, SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationClient Alert. Number 1355 July 3, Latham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1355 July 3, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department District Court Ruling Paves the Way for More Negligent Securities Fraud Enforcement Actions Under Sections 17(a)(2) and (3)
More informationCase 2:18-cv GAM Document 15 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:18-cv-01959-GAM Document 15 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELEN McLAUGHLIN : CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-7315 : v. : : NO. 18-1144
More informationProduct Safety & Liability Reporter
Product Safety & Liability Reporter Reproduced with permission from Product Safety & Liability Reporter, 30 PSLR 840, 08/01/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= MEDTRONIC, INC., v. Petitioner, RICHARD STENGEL AND MARY LOU STENGEL, Respondents. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals
More informationCase 2:06-cv CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:06-cv-00585-CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLIFTON DREYFUS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 06-585 ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.
More informationWASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2021 COMMENTS of WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION to the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Concerning DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY AND FDA STAFF: DECIDING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION
Case 1:13-cv-00686-JMS-RLP Document 32 Filed 04/10/14 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 984 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII KARLA BEAVERS-GABRIEL, vs. Plaintiff, MEDTRONIC, INC. and
More informationSarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Registration No. 333-101826 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 POST-EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 Sarepta
More informationClient Alert. Background
Number 1481 March 5, 2013 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department US Supreme Court Holds That Proof Of Materiality Is Not A Prerequisite To Certifying A Securities Fraud Class Action Under
More informationDrug Preemption v. Medical Device Preemption: A Study in Contrast
Journal of the Kansas Association for Justice u Product liability Drug Preemption v. Medical Device Preemption: A Study in Contrast By Leslie Overfelt and Patrick A. Hamilton Leslie Overfelt, is a staff
More information- F.3d, 2009 WL , C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO )
CITE AS: 1 HASTINGS. SCI. AND TECH. L.J. 269 ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - F.3d, 2009 WL 877642, C.A.Fed. (Mass.), April 03, 2009 (NO. 2008-1248) I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Defendant-Appellant
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BARBARA HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, THORATEC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-4597 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BARBARA HORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THORATEC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for
More informationFederal Preemption of State Tort Suits under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976
Federal Preemption of State Tort Suits under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 33 Filed: 01/11/18 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:324
Case: 1:17-cv-05428 Document #: 33 Filed: 01/11/18 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CATHERINE GRAVITT and TRAVIS GRAVITT, Plaintiffs,
More informationProduct Liability Newsletter
Product Liability Newsletter Fall 2008 In This Issue page 2 The Duty of Manufacturers to Indemnify Sellers in Product Liability Cases by Lisa Powell page 3 Toxic Torts in Multi-District Litigation by Rocky
More informationPost-Decision Diagnosis: Medical Device Preemption Alive and Mostly Well after Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
Annals of Health Law Volume 6 Issue 1 1997 Article 10 1997 Post-Decision Diagnosis: Medical Device Preemption Alive and Mostly Well after Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr Scott W. Sayler Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
More informationIn The Shadows of Lohr: The Disconnect Within The Supreme Court's Preemption Jurisprudence In Medical Device Liability Cases
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-2009 In The Shadows of Lohr: The Disconnect Within The Supreme Court's Preemption Jurisprudence In Medical Device
More informationCV (LDW) (ARL) Plaintiff Theresa Burkett ( Burkett ) brings this products liability action against
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X THERESA BURKETT, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- CV 12-4895 (LDW) (ARL) SMITH
More informationLatest Developments in Federal Preemption. Submitted for. ACI Drug and Medical Device Conference. New York, New York.
Latest Developments in Federal Preemption by Anand Agneshwar, 1 Michael Imbroscio, 2 and Lisa Martinez Wolmart 3 Submitted for ACI Drug and Medical Device Conference New York, New York December 2007 1
More informationLatham & Watkins Finance Department
Number 1242 September 29, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Finance Department Pipeline Safety Snapshot: Potential New Legislative and Regulatory Changes to Pipeline Safety Requirements Taken together,
More informationFebruary 6, Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation
February 6, 2013 Practice Groups: Class Action Litigation Defense; Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Knowing Where You Are Litigating is Half the Battle: The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument
More informationComments. By JAMEs E. HEFFNER*
Comments An Undue Burden on an Otherwise Feasible Defense: California Courts' Burden on the Defendant Moving for Summary Judgment Based on Federal Preemption in Certain Medical Device Cases By JAMEs E.
More information3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5
3:14-cv-01982-MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Melinda K. Lindler, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action
More information2. Plaintiffs amended complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
MID-L-002442-18 L 09/12/2018 12/24/2018 4:04:04 PM Pg Pg 1 of 1 2 of Trans 2 Trans ID: ID: LCV20182226629 LCV20181580346 Michael C. Zogby (NJ ID 030312002) Jessica L. Brennan (NJ ID 024232007) DRINKER
More informationPatients Beware: Preemption of Common Law Claims Under the Medical Device Amendments, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2005)
The John Marshall Law Review Volume 39 Issue 1 Article 8 Fall 2005 Patients Beware: Preemption of Common Law Claims Under the Medical Device Amendments, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 75 (2005) Michael P. DiNatale
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1351 In the Supreme Court of the United States MEDTRONIC, INC., PETITIONER v. RICHARD STENGEL AND MARY LOU STENGEL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationLatham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources
Number 851 April 15, 2009 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Courts Remain Split on Whether Denial of Class Certification Deprives Federal Courts of CAFA Jurisdiction Federal district
More informationLaw Introducing Rules for Localization of Personal Data of Russian Citizens
Law Introducing Rules for Localization of Personal Data of Russian Citizens Natalia Gulyaeva Partner, Head of IPMT practice for Russia/CIS Moscow Bret Cohen Associate, Privacy & Information Management
More informationKey Developments in U.S. Patent Law
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY LITIGATION NEWSLETTER ISSUE 2014-1: JUNE 3, 2014 Key Developments in U.S. Patent Law In this issue: Fee Shifting Divided Infringement Patent Eligibility Definiteness
More informationIS THERE A 'NONCOMPLIANCE' EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION?
Page 1 of 14 Mayer Brown's Appellate.net Reprinted with permission from Product Safety & Liability Reporter, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 57-67 (Jan. 19, 1996). Copyright 1996 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
More informationCase 2:14-cv PD Document 65 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:14-cv-07317-PD Document 65 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELEN McLAUGHLIN : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAYER CORPORATION, et
More information