Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyeth

Wyeth was a pharmaceutical company purchased by Pfizer in 2009. The company was founded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1860 as John Wyeth and Brother. It was later known as American Home Products before being renamed to Wyeth in 2002. Its headquarters moved to Collegeville, Pennsylvania , and Madison, ...

www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(BP)%20wyeth.pdf

Mar 4, 2009 ... Authority to Regulate the Specifics of Prescription Drug Labeling and the Preemption Debate, 61 FOOD &. DRUG L. J. 585 (2006). 3 The other two cases are Warner-Lambert v. Kent 552 U.S.___(2008) and Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552. U.S.___(2008). 4 Wyeth, supra note 1. 5 Wyeth, supra note 1. 6. Rep.

inthesetimes.com/article/3894/high_court_may_immunize_big_pharma

Sep 9, 2008 ... But that case, Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent, failed to make law because a tie vote resulted when Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself over ownership of Pfizer/Warner-Lambert stock. (Although Levine v. Wyeth will have industry-wide impact, few expect another recusal.) In February, the court ruled 8-1 ...

www.packaginglaw.com/special-focus/wyeth-v-levine-%E2%80%93-us-supreme-court-rejects-fda-preemption-pharmaceutical-cases

May 12, 2009 ... Whether state tort litigation is impliedly preempted in Wyeth, therefore, is less straightforward than in Riegel. Court Split in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent. Next the Court took on the preemption prescription drug case of Warner-Lambert Co. v . Kent.[28] In this case, Michigan residents sued Warner-Lambert for ...

www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/22914-warner-lambert-company-llc-v-novartis-singapore-pte-ltd

Aug 1, 2017 ... The Judge's decision is reported as Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Novartis ( Singapore) Pte Ltd [2016] 4 SLR 252 (the "Judgment”). On 1 August 2016, Warner-Lambert ...... 93 The English Courts recognised the validity of Swiss-style claims in John Wyeth's and Schering Applications. There, the court (at 567) ...

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2080&context=facpub

May 11, 2009 ... Lambert Co., LLC v. Kent, 128 S. Ct. 1168 (2008). 26 See, e.g., In re Bextra & Celebrex Marketing Sales Prac- tices and Prod. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 2374742, * 6-*7 (N.D. Cal. 2006). 27 Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1192. 28 See id. 29 See id. ( quoting FDA correspondence). 30 Id. at 1194. 31 Levine v. Wyeth, 944 ...

www.spilmanlaw.com/media%20content/media-content/documents/preemption-developments.pdf

drug and medical device product liability claims: Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., Warner -Lambert. Co. v. Kent, and Wyeth v. Levine. Important to each of these opinions are two fundamental principles that guide preemption law. First, “the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every preemption case.” Wyeth, 129 S. Ct.

caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1043832.html

Case opinion for MD Court of Appeals BLACKWELL v. WYETH. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. ... Warner-Lambert Co., 424 F.3d 249, 254-255 (2d Cir. 2005) (excluding expert testimony that medication was capable of causing or exacerbating cirrhosis because the expert's failure to consider other causes when ...

www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/df2c93f4-81ae-4db3-bd1e-27b918a97e40/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/df85f912-1670-4d6d-9043-d8a47a4c2e1a/Herrmann_Alden_Harrison.pdf

Mar 18, 2010 ... their attention not on explaining how Riegel affected medical device cases, but rather on predicting what the case meant for two later prescription drug preemption cases that came before the Supreme. Court—Warner-Lambert Co. v. Kent12 and Wyeth v. Levine13—or ad-. 7. Id. at 330 (citing Medtronic v.