This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
WUSF / AgencyIQ November 1 Initial deadline for NDSRIs Under a 2023 guidance document, the FDA has recommended that pharmaceuticalcompanies assess Nitrosamine Drug-Related Substance Impurities for their products by November 1, 2023, with confirmatory testing due by August 1, 2025. to include devices.
Another of our posts quoted similar concerns raised by our clients in the pharmaceutical industry as the matter was being successfully appealed to the United States Supreme Court: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling threatens to stifle pharmaceutical innovation by disrupting industry’s reasonable investment-backed expectations.
We’ve discussed recently how a federal statute intended to allow suits against international terrorists has been misapplied as allowing suits against pharmaceuticalcompanies. It is not clear that [defendants] will − or even can − avail themselves of a TPP-by-TPP causation defense using doctor-by-doctor testimony.
In two of these cases, our client won summary judgment at the trial court level and an appellate court ended up creating a new cause of action to accommodate the plaintiff’s theory (and lack of helpful testimony from the prescribing physician). That gnaws at us, but the preemption analysis was simple and toothsome. 2023 WL 2386776, *3.
The court in Wolfe refused to impose a negligence duty on the defendant pharmaceuticalcompany to develop and obtain FDA approval of the plaintiff’s non-FDA-approved alternative. 7, 2022), which addressed the same question in the context of the admissibility of expert testimony. His testimony is thus irrelevant and inadmissible.
The defendant first sought PLAC’s help on en banc rehearing, after suffering a loss on admission of expert testimony that we considered to be the worst decision of 2021. Notice how admissibility of expert testimony under Fed. Conversely, we think pharma/medical device companies need to have PLAC’s back. 19-2899 (8th Cir.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content