The New and Improved FDA Priority Review Voucher Program

December 2, 2014

Last month, the FDA released a guidance document explaining a new iteration of its priority review voucher program, the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program (“RPD program”).  The RPD program was enacted in 2012 under the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act, and is closely modeled from Congress’s first priority review legislation passed in 2007 […]

Read the full article →

Court Rejects Defendant Manufacturer’s Ascertainability Challenge

December 1, 2014

While we have seen defendant manufacturers defeat class certification bids on ascertainability grounds, a Northern District of California federal court issued an order on November 14th certifying a class of purchasers of Hain’s Avalon Organics and Jason cosmetic products despite Hain’s arguments that ascertainability was unmet.  Brown v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. C 11-03082 […]

Read the full article →

Plaintiffs and Defendants Give Thanks for Pennsylvania Tort Law Overhaul

November 25, 2014

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down a decision last week in Tincher v. Omega Flex Inc., that will significantly revamp the letter of product liability law in the state, earning high praise from both sides of the bar. In a 137-page opinion, outgoing Chief Justice Ronald Castille surveyed the history […]

Read the full article →

Humanizing the Corporation

November 24, 2014

Jurors are real people – they have kids, they have jobs, they coach little league, they go to church. Real people like people they can identify with. Real people like people they can trust. And real people have a hard time finding against or punishing people they like. It’s just human nature. So what do […]

Read the full article →

First Circuit Takes Broad View of Reasonableness In Extending Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants

November 17, 2014

Last week the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a contract suit against a foreign corporation that had no physical presence in the United States.  The contract between the plaintiff, an investment bank based in Massachusetts, and the defendant, a Canadian corporation that produces nutritional supplements, provided that the plaintiff would serve as the defendant’s […]

Read the full article →