In Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013) (No. 12-142), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question whether federal law preempts state law design defect claims that allege the inadequacy of warnings against generic drug makers. Plaintiff, who suffered serious injury from taking a generic prescription pharmaceutical product, sued the generic drug manufacturer that made the product she took, alleging that the defendant violated New Hampshire law governing product warnings. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that New Hampshire law would have required the defendant to change the warnings on its label, which had been approved by the FDA and therefore could not be changed under federal law. The Court upheld the defense of impossibility preemption, concluding that it was impossible for defendant to satisfy both federal law and state law in this circumstance. Furthermore, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a generic drug company can avoid impossibility preemption by taking its product off the market.