The U.S. Supreme Court's recent game-changing decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California is widely seen as the beginning of the end for mass torts in several venues that have historically attracted large-scale litigation, including California and Missouri.

But, for Pennsylvania—another state with significant mass tort dockets—the ruling is expected to be much more of a mixed bag, and, according to some, could instead lead to an uptick in suits against certain defendants.

On Monday, a majority of the Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs suing Bristol-Myers Squibb in California who were not California residents had failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical giant, since there was no significant link between the claims and Bristol-Myers' conduct in California. The ruling, according to observers, makes clear that out-of-state plaintiffs can't sue companies in states where the defendants aren't considered to be “at home,” or haven't conducted business directly linked to the claimed injury.