Source: https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/2015/12/may-odds-be-ever-in-your-favor-ten-bes.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:35:04+00:00

Document:
(11) Shepherd v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 6956767 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2015). Plaintiffs don’t dare bringing personal injury class actions against prescription medical products much anymore. Shepherd is a timely reminder why that’s true. We blogged about denial of class certification here.
(12) In re Accutane Litigation, 2015 WL 1504304 (N.J. Super. Law Div. April 2, 2015). The court’s ruling that the drug’s warnings were adequate as a matter of law pretty well shut down this long-running litigation, as discussed here and here.
(13) PomWonderful, LLC v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The First Amendment applies to the FTC, too, and truth is not to be judged by the FDA’s “substantial evidence” test. We celebrated another appellate free speech win here.
(14) Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 4743056 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2015), and Rheinfrank v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 5836973 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015). These twin decisions would have ranked higher, except that Yates stole some of their thunder. Rheinfrank I was a relatively rare finding of preemption against plaintiff’s most dangerous warning claims under the Levine (2009-1), as well as some useful state-law (Ohio) rulings. Rheinfrank II added design defect preemption. We discussed Rheinfrank here, and Rheinfrank II here.
(15) Johnson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2015 WL 1004308 (E.D. Pa. March 9, 2015). How many of us – particularly in mass tort litigation – have thought that many of the plaintiffs’ cases are so patently weak as to be frivolous and sanctionable? In this case, the court granted sanctions, based on the statute of limitations and product identification. We never blogged on this case because of Reed Smith’s involvement in the litigation, but it merits an honorable mention.
(16) In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, 2015 WL 6859286 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 9, 2015). TRT deflated the last-ditch generic plaintiffs’ argument that generic drugs that did double duty as FDA reference listed somehow lost the protection of preemption. We got a rise out of that, here.
(17) Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 2015 WL 1475368 (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2015), certif. for appeal denied, 2015 WL 4770987 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2015). Component parts, off-label use, failure to report – you name it, plaintiffs threw it at PMA preemption – without success, as we discussed here.
(18) Mink v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2015 WL 7356285 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2015), the FDA has increasingly conditioned its approval of a product on the manufacturer conducting post-approval clinical trials. Does participation in such a trial avoid preemption. Fortunately, as a matter of first impression, Mink said “no” – a result we liked, here.
(19) Latimer v. Medtronic, Inc., 2015 WL 5222644 (Ga. Super. Sept. 4, 2015). Believe it or not, the best reasoned trial court-level Infuse decision anywhere might just be state trial judge’s opinion from Bexis’ home town of Atlanta, Georgia. Read it and marvel, here.
(20) In re Actiq Sales & Marketing Practices Litigation, 307 F.R.D. 150 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Nationwide third-party payer class action alleging state-law causes of action. While denial of certification is the rule, this opinion is jam-packed with the defense-side goodies that we detailed here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.