Prop. 65
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
Executive Summary
The state of California plans to appeal a recent U.S. district court ruling that FDA requirements for dental mercury preempt California's Proposition 65 warning requirements for the product. According to a appeal notice filed by California, the state's appeal brief -- which has not yet been filed -- will raise questions such as "whether the general [FDA] labeling requirements applicable to all medical devices and all prescription devices preempt the specific reproductive toxicity warning requirement imposed by Proposition 65." The district court concluded that preemption is legally necessary because California's rules are "different from, or in addition to" FDA's "specific requirements" for dental mercury. The state maintained that FDA's rules are not "specific requirements" but general controls that apply to all medical devices
You may also be interested in...
Who’s Hired? Hikma Recruits New US Generics President
A flurry of top level recruitments made headlines in the past weeks, with the likes of Hikma, Lupin, and Viatris announcing new hires while focusing on their targets for the year.
Organon And Henlius Complete Phase III For Denosumab
Having earlier this year reported positive Phase I data for their partnered denosumab biosimilar candidate, Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech have now announced that their HLX14 version has met primary endpoints in a Phase III study.
Taro Agrees $36m Securities Settlement Over US Price-Fixing Claims
Sun’s Taro subsidiary is looking to move forward with an eight-figure settlement deal in the US, after plaintiffs including a firefighters’ pension fund accused the firm of misleading investors via its involvement in generic price fixing, leading to a fall in the price of its securities.