In September 2018, California passed SB-327, the first Internet of Things (IoT) security law addressing growing concerns over cybersecurity for the burgeoning market of consumer IoT devices.

Continue Reading Internet-of-Things Security Standards: Will States Follow California’s Lead or Look Across the Pond for Further Guidance?

Electric scooters and the shared economy

If you have spent any time in Los Angeles or New York City recently, you may have noticed adults riding two-wheeled electric scooters − the type we are more accustomed to seeing kids ride. These scooters are the latest transportation tools in the ever-evolving sharing economy.

Continue Reading As Electric Scooters Barrel Their Way into the Sharing Economy, Manufacturers and Their Insurers Should Prepare for an Influx of New Claims

By now, followers of California’s Proposition 65 are well aware of the August 30, 2018, changes. In a nutshell, they are:

  • Changes to warnings that require inclusion of a specific chemical and potential harmful result of either cancer and/or birth defect
  • Required website warnings
  • Mandatory pictograph and required font size
  • The burden is shifted from retailers to manufacturers
  • Annual renewal and review.


Continue Reading What’s up on Prop 65 three months after new regulations?

The discovery phase in your products liability lawsuit has been completed and it’s time to decide the next course of action before proceeding to trial. One possibility, of course, is to move for summary judgment to knock out the entire case pending against your client. However, you have concluded that, despite the strengths of your case, there are enough “issues of fact” to make the exercise probably useless.

Have you considered instead a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment? Perhaps you should.

The first step is to determine whether your jurisdiction permits motions for partial summary judgment to be filed. Rule 56 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically calls for “Partial” summary judgments in its very title. In my home state, New York’s CPLR 3212(e) reads, “In any other action summary judgment may be granted as to one or more causes of action, or part thereof, in favor of any one or more parties, to the extent warranted, on such terms as may be just.” Thus, there is little doubt that under the right reading of the law and facts, a partial summary judgment might be allowed.
Continue Reading The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: The Litigator’s Often Forgotten Tool

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