It’s turning into a busy summer for decisions examining the tort theory of “innovator liability”: the notion that brand-name drug companies can be held liable for inadequate warnings on other manufacturers’ generic versions of their drugs. The controversial theory has been widely panned on appeal, most recently by courts in the Midwest in June and July.
But innovator liability isn’t dead yet. On Friday the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed its lonely decision to uphold the doctrine, dealing a blow to Pfizer Inc. and other brand drug makers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]