Law

Because of Dechert's involvement in Reglan litigation, we can't say as much as we'd like to (or used to) about so-called "Conte" liability - that is theories by which plaintiffs who only took generic drugs attempt to impose liability on the manufacturer of a branded bioequivalent that they neither bought nor consumed.  As we mentioned previously, that issue is currently pending in the Alabama Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Weeks, its first appearance in a state high court.

We're willing to bet that the defense briefing in Weeks repressents the current state of the art in defending/arguing against Conte-style liability.  For the benefit of everyone out there who is arguing against Conte, we're therefore providing three publicly filed briefs from the Weeks case:  those filed by defendant/appellant Wyeth (be patient, this one takes a while to download), amicus Product Liability Advisory Council, and amicus Defense Research Institute.

Thanks to Kevin Newsom at Bradley Arent for the Wyeth brief, and to Chilton Varner, at King & Spalding for the PLAC brief.  We grabbed the DRI brief from its website.

--
Posted By Bexis to Drug and Device Law at 1/27/2012 12:12:00 PM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Drug and Device Law" group.
To post to this group, send email to drug-and-device-law@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to drug-and-device-law-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/drug-and-device-law?hl=en