Children's Motrin Label Ruling Shows 'Genuine Confusion' On Pre-emption – J&J
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
J&J's attorneys argue that a state court ruling of inadequate warnings on Children's Motrin labels conflicts with a federal appellate court's ruling about the product that also swung on whether a manufacturer can be held liable for failing to include a label warning without “clear evidence” FDA would have approved the label.
You may also be interested in...
J&J Petitions Supreme Court On Pre-emption, ‘Clear Evidence’ In OTC Litigation
Johnson & Johnson files a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review a $140m judgment against the firm in Massachusetts. Questions over “clear evidence” needed for FDA decision to pre-empt state courts are at heart of issue and need the court’s consideration.
High Court’s Wyeth v. Levine Ruling Returns Pre-Emption Status Quo
The Supreme Court's ruling in Wyeth v. Levine dashes pharmaceutical industry hopes for broad protection from state product liability lawsuits, but is not expected to trigger a sea-change in current industry operations
Jurors' Answers In FTC's Prevagen Complaint Might Burst A Memory Bubble For Health Claims
“No” answers in New York federal court on whether all but two of Prevagen claims were “materially misleading” could put a fork in the road of a long dispute between FTC and supplement product manufacturers and marketers.