Previously on this blog, Wilson Elser attorneys have written several posts about 3D printing technology and the law. We have predicted that this new technology has the potential to change the landscape of product liability law. This is happening, and especially so with respect to implantable medical devices, which are revolutionizing the health care industry with their unlimited potential for customization.

While there are still no published opinions for product liability cases involving 3D printed medical implants (or any 3D printed medical devices for that matter), we recently had the opportunity to defend a manufacturer client on product liability and negligence causes of action asserted against its 3D printed, custom-made orthopedic prosthesis. We obtained summary judgment for the client.

Continue Reading 3D Printed Medical Implants: Should Laws and Regulations Be Revolutionized to Address This Revolutionary Customized Technology?

In the first part of this series, we examined how effective deposition questioning about an expert’s education, training and experience can ultimately call into serious question the expert’s qualifications to serve as an expert witness at trial and survive a subsequent Daubert motion. We examined how some experts, despite their seemingly extensive and impressive credentials, may actually have no experience in the relevant field or may be exaggerating the depth of their past work experience. This may ultimately lead to the Court finding that the expert is offering opinions in an area about which they know nothing.
Continue Reading Cross-Examining the Expert Witness in a PL Case Part II: What Are the Relevant Facts & Data?

Background
In a service-based economy, many industrial and consumer products are manufactured and sold through trademark licensing arrangements. Under these types of contractual agreements, the owner of the trademark licenses its brand name or mark to another company in exchange for a licensing fee. The authorized user of the trademark then has a contractual right to manufacture and sell the goods bearing the trademark. However, in some circumstances, the mere act of licensing the trademark to a manufacturer of a product for a fee can expose the licensor to a product liability claim under the Apparent Manufacturers Doctrine (AMD).
Continue Reading Licensors Beware: Substantial Participation in Design, Manufacture and/or Distribution of Licensee’s Product May Impose Liability Under Apparent Manufacturers Doctrine (AMD)

Deposing your adversary’s liability expert is not only a chance to delve into the details of the expert’s opinions, but the deposition also presents a great opportunity for defense counsel to explore the sustainability of the expert’s opinions going forward. In the context of a products liability case, the plaintiff’s expert’s deposition, if used wisely, can set up an effective challenge to the expert’s proffered opinions under the Federal Rules and can result in the expert’s eventual disqualification. Perhaps nothing is more devastating to the Plaintiff’s case than the loss of his expert for all, or even part, of the case.
Continue Reading Asking the Right Questions at the Expert’s Deposition to lay the foundation for your client’s Daubert Challenge

After many years of debate, consideration and public input, California’s new regulations go into effect on August 30, 2018, under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 − commonly known as Prop 65. This is the first major update to the Act in more than 30 years. The stated purpose is to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings and more detailed information to consumers. The new rules will be applicable to all products manufactured after August 30, 2018. Manufacturers may still use existing warning labels, but only for products that were manufactured before August 30, 2018. Although the new regulations become mandatory after August 30, 2018, they can be used now.
Continue Reading WARNING! Prop 65 regulations are a year away in California. Is Your Product’s Warning Label Compliant?