Photo of Jianlin Song

Jianlin Song

Subscribe to Jianlin Song's Posts

Jianlin Song, M.D., J.D., began her professional life as a physician in Beijing, China, which provided her with a solid background and extensive knowledge to represent companies and individual practitioners in the life sciences and health care industries after she changed her career path from medicine to law. During her 15-year legal career, Dr. Song has defended manufacturers of a very broad spectrum of life science products, from food supplements and dental adhesives to prescription drugs and medical devices. She also has represented clinical and diagnostic laboratories and dental, medical and nursing practitioners in professional malpractice cases, and in response to investigations by their respective professional boards. Among her many successes, Dr. Song defended a manufacturer of a 3D-printed joint prosthesis, obtaining a no liability judgment, which yielded the first published opinion in product liability law involving a 3D-printed medical device in the state of California.

Contact: Read more about Jianlin Song

The SCOTUS decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court[1] is a decision that we believe will alter the legal landscape in the defense of product liability matters with respect to the personal jurisdiction defense. We have reported on this case in prior posts (see The Law of Personal Jurisdiction Is About to Be Changed Again – What Life Science Companies Should Expect), and now that a decision has been handed down by the SCOTUS, we would like to share some of our thoughts on how we believe the decision will impact the defense of life science companies in product liability litigation throughout the United States.
Continue Reading The SCOTUS Decision in Ford v. Montana and Its Impact on the Defense of Life Science Companies

The concept of personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to order a defendant to answer legal claims filed in a particular state. “Lack of personal jurisdiction” is a powerful defense that will not only get the defendant out of the case at the very outset but also deter any future cases brought against that defendant in the same state. …
Continue Reading The Law of Personal Jurisdiction Is About to Be Changed Again – What Life Science Companies Should Expect

The Evolution of Innovator Liability for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Brand-name drug manufacturers are not unfamiliar with the concept of Innovator Liability, under which they can be held liable for injuries caused by a product they did not make. In other words, Innovator Liability holds a manufacturer liable by virtue of being an innovator.

Innovator Liability, usually brought under a failure to warn theory, can be traced back to a 2008 California case, Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., where the Court of Appeal held that a branded drug manufacturer’s duty to warn extends to patients taking the generic counterpart. The court reasoned that it is foreseeable that physicians and pharmacists may rely on the brand drug’s label to prescribe the drug’s generic counterpart for patients.[i] Conte has been rebuffed nationwide. By July 2014, more than 100 courts in 49 states, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for six different circuits, rejected Innovator Liability.[ii] The Supreme Court of Iowa described Innovator Liability as “deep-pocket jurisprudence [which] is law without principle.”[iii]…

Continue Reading Never-Ending Liability Under Novartis

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?