Unlocking Legalities: To Change How Courts View 510(k) Clearances, Industry Seeks 'Supreme' Support
Executive Summary
Medtech's legal realm wants the US Supreme Court to correct the record on 510(k)s next term, and they say they've found the right case to make that happen: a J&J/Ethicon mesh device suit where the lower court refused to let the jury hear any mention at all of US FDA or the product's 510(k) clearance. Courts say 510(k)s lack sufficient relevance to support a company's case for product safety, but industry says that view is based on outdated facts and is fundamentally unfair.
You may also be interested in...
US Supreme Court Preview: Cases To Watch For Medtech
A case before the Supreme Court this term will bring the five-year-old PTAB patent examination system into question, while two cases involving are being appealed for review. Of the pending cases, one involves a circuit split on what type of damages consumers must suffer to be allowed to sue medtech companies, while the other looks at the right of states to use outside counsel in suits against manufacturers.
Court Rules Against Ethicon In Pelvic Mesh Case, But Without Punitive Damages
A jury awarded $2.16 million in the case, making it the first time a jury in a pelvic mesh case has ruled in a plaintiff’s favor without including punitive damages. Meanwhile, Ethicon is also appealing an earlier case to the US Supreme Court, and CR Bard has settled almost 100 pelvic mesh cases pending in West Virginia.
Q&A: 20-Hour 510(k)? Attorney Calls On Courts To Update Its Figures
In an interview with "The Gray Sheet," medical device attorney Jeffrey Shapiro discusses his effort to get the federal courts to modify what he says is a drastically outdated perception of the 510(k) process.