In Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 12-6403 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2014), plaintiff sued the manufacturer of a generic drug, paroxetine, which her husband had taken shortly before committing suicide, and also sued the manufacturer of the brand name version of that drug, Paxil. The generic manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss and the brand name manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment. The court noted that the Hatch-Waxman Act provides that drug manufacturers may make a generic version of a drug where the brand name manufacturer has obtained FDA approval once the brand name manufacturer’s patent expires. The Act specifies that the generic drug manufacturer must use a warning and label that matches identically with the brand name drug’s warning and label in all material respects. The court held that, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the claim against the generic manufacturer had to be dismissed as preempted because the generic manufacturer was bound by federal law to follow the brand name manufacturer’s warning and label design. With respect to the brand name manufacturer, however, the district court denied summary judgment. The court reasoned that although the decedent had never actually taken the brand name drug, its manufacturer was legally responsible for the warning and label design associated with the generic drug and could be held liable if plaintiff were able to establish that it negligently failed to change the label and warning after experience demonstrated that the warning and label were not accurate.