We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
With the ink barely dry on the Supreme Court’s recent decision that pharmaceutical detailing is First Amendment protected commercial speech, see Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 2011 WL 2472796, at 8 (U.S. June 23, 2011), the industry is trying again for clarity in the morass that is the FDA’s current regulation (if it can be called that) of off-label promotion
Not too long ago a case here in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Slater v. Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 1087240 (E.D. Pa. March 25, 2011), held that an inadequate warning claim against a “monograph publisher” survived the rather loose standard imposed upon fraudulent joinder
