According to the fourth quarter 2017 sales earnings report released by J&J, Invokana made $262 million which was a 29% dip when compared to the previous reports. The low figures are reasoned to be due to the growing competition and awareness of the side-effects associated with this the Type 2 diabetes medication.
The U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted Forest Laboratories’ motion for summary judgment on all claims made by the plaintiffs who alleged that the company fraudulently promoted Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric depression. This ruling brings an end to the long-running Massachusetts MDL 2067: In Re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
In addition to the ovarian cancer lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson is now facing Mesothelioma lawsuits along with Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals Co., allegations include that the asbestos from the talc products is the cause of mesothelioma (a tumor of the tissue that lines the lungs, stomach, heart and other organs) development. This is the second related trial which began on January 22, 2018, in Middlesex County, New Jersey Superior Court. The plaintiff, in this case, alleges that he developed mesothelioma on exposure to the asbestos present in the talc manufactured by the named defendants. The trial was put on hold for evidentiary dispute by the Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi, overseeing the trial. Allegations include failure to warn in spite of being aware of the increased risk of mesothelioma on exposure to asbestos. However, the defendants argue that the products never contained asbestos, and maintain that the plaintiffs used faulty test methods. This trial is expected to run for two months.
The first mesothelioma- talc trial ended in a defense verdict in November 2017 in Los Angeles Superior Court.
AndroGel maker AbbVie, won the verdict in the third bellwether case as the jury found that the testosterone replacement therapy maker was not liable for the plaintiff’s pulmonary embolism condition. The case was a part of lawsuits centralized under MDL 2545 (In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly. The lawsuits allege that the defendants named in this MDL fabricated a condition called “Low T,” which was merely the natural effects of aging resulting in thousands of men exposed to the risk of cardiovascular side effects.
More than 6,000 lawsuits are a part of the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, with more than 4,500 cases filed against AbbVie. However, AbbVie has said that it's marketing of AndroGel adhered strictly to uses approved by the FDA and that it was in full compliance with applicable standards.
Another heart failure lawsuit filed recently now awaits a nod for from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralization of all federally-filed Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR lawsuits in a single U.S. District Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The number of lawsuits filed has already crossed 40 and is expected to eventually grow to include hundreds of similar cases.
The JPML was scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 25, 2018, to decide whether consolidation was necessary or not. The court records show more than 42 product liability lawsuits pending in the federal court system filed by individuals who developed congestive heart failure and other side effects of diabetes drug.
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts overseeing Stryker Hip Replacement lawsuits has extended the date for Plaintiff Fact Sheets submission from January 12 to January 26, 2018. The parties were also informed that the bellwether selection date was also extended from February 7th to February 14, 2018. Around 180 Stryker Hip replacement lawsuits involving L-FIT V40 femoral heads have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani under MDL No. 2768 – In re: Stryker LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litigation. Also, more than 86 additional cases have been centralized in an MDL in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court.
Plaintiff’ allege that the L-FIT V40 femoral head was not properly tested before being brought to the market, that Stryker wrongly marketed L-FIT V40 femoral heads as the perfect fit for younger, more active patients, even though the company was aware that the device was associated with a higher premature failure rate than similar components, and failing to provide the medical community and the patients with adequate warnings about the risks allegedly associates with LFIT V40 femoral heads.
Following the preparation of 3M Bair Hugger System trial cases to be heard April 2018 onwards, the Federal Court has ordered initiation of preparing for the second round of bellwether trials. On January 19, 2018, a Pretrial Order was released by the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota; according to this order, each party is to designate 16 cases from this group as “bellwether appropriate” by March 12, 2018. The parties are also to propose a bellwether trial sequence and a schedule for preparing the first two cases for trial.
Nearly 4,200 Bair Hugger lawsuits are now pending in the District of Minnesota, as a part of MDL 2666- (In Re: Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation), presided by United States District Judge Joan N. Ericksen. All the cases are filed on behalf of plaintiffs who developed serious and debilitating deep joint infections, allegedly related to the use of the forced air warmer system during their hip or knee replacement surgery.
Plaintiffs claim that the 3M Bair Hugger System suffers from a design defect that allows potentially-contaminated air from the operating room floor to come into contact with an open surgical site, making the patients susceptible to develop a postoperative infection at the site of their implant, requiring additional treatments and surgeries, as well as permanent disability and even death.
Roundup Weed Killer: MDL No. 2741; in re: Roundup Products liability litigation was formed in October 2016, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, in the Northern District of California. The defendant, Monsanto, will face the first trial on June 18, 2018, in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco. About 3,500 plaintiffs now represent nearly 2,200 cases filed in state and federal courts.
Opioids: MDL No 2804; in Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation) created on December 5, 2017, to be presided to U.S. District Judge Dan A. Polster, in the Northern District of Ohio. More than 200 separate lawsuits relating to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution and related sales practices of prescription opioid drugs by “Big Pharma” drug makers and distributors are centralized under this litigation.
Nexium: MDL No. 2757; in re: Proton-pump inhibitor Products liability litigation, created in August 2017, presided by Judge Claire C. Cecchi, in the U.S. District of New Jersey. Other defendants include makers of Prilosec, Prevacid, and others. As of January 2018 status report, there are 469 lawsuits pending in the federal MDL, which involve 503 plaintiffs. In addition, there are about another 227 related lawsuits pending in state courts, with 127 pending in the Delaware Superior Court.
Xarelto: MDL No. 2592: in Re: Xarelto Products Liability Litigation, created in January 2017, i is presided by Honorable Eldon E. Fallon, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where a huge number of Xarelto lawsuits are pending. The Master Case No. 2349 also holds Xarelto cases at the PA Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas – Complex Litigation (PA State Court). Three verdicts have been announced in favor of the defendants; the fourth verdict initially announced in favor of the plaintiff was tossed in favor of the defendants by the Philadelphia Jury in January 2018. Over 21,000 Xarelto lawsuits are filed nationwide since the New Orleans’ MDL creation.
At the conference meeting held on 30th of January, Judge Fallon urged both parties to arrive at a resolution. To near the end of this MDL, he also made a referral of remanding 1,200 cases back to the court of original jurisdiction for trial or settlement and closing any residual but crucial discovery issues.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has Xarelto trial dates set for March 19, April 16, and June 11, 2018, to be heard before Judge Arnold New.
Invokana: MDL 2750: In Re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation- created in December 2016, presided by Hon. Brian R. Martinotti, U.S.D.J, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; First bellwether -September 2018. Cases are also filed in state courts, primarily in California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. As per the most recent court records, more than 1,000 Invokana lawsuits are currently pending the federal MDL and are in the pretrial discovery phase.
The Missouri Court remanded a Talcum Powder lawsuit filed by 22 plaintiffs back to the state court after the federal court found that removal was not timely. This decision was taken by the trial court based on the evidence provided by the plaintiff to show that J&J had used a Missouri-based company to manufacture, mislabel and package its talcum powder products. The lawsuit is now awaiting its June 4, 2018, trial.
A U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, which stipulated that plaintiffs may only file suit in jurisdictions where defendants are headquartered or where their injuries are alleged to have occurred, has impacted the fate of many lawsuits.
The FDA is proposing to delay the effective date of the amendments to the existing medical product “intended use” regulations to allow further consideration of the substantive issues raised in the comments received. As per the Federal Register of January 9, 2017, the final rule added a new regulation (§ 1100.5) to title 21 of the CFR to describe the circumstances in which a product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption will be subject to regulation as a drug, device, or a combination product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The effective date of the final set rule was finally set as until March 19, 2018, as the FDA reopened the docket to invite additional public comment on the rule and will consider the comments submitted to prepare and publish a final notification of the delay.
A recent report stated that J&J’s Ethicon, Inc. has failed to meet a regulatory deadline set forth by Australian Therapeutics Good Administration (TGA) for updating the products’ “instructions for use” for its Gynecare TVT, a pelvic mesh device, which was set as January 17th. This has resulted in the withdrawing of the product from the Australian market and the product no longer appears on the TGA Register. However, the company clarified that this was not a product recall and required no action by those who had received the product.
Settlement amount offered by Boston Scientific for transvaginal mesh injuries is cited to fall short by a plaintiff when scaled with the collateral damage she suffered due to the injuries. In October of 2017, the company without any admission or concession of any liability or wrongdoing announced a settlement to resolve nearly 44,000 transvaginal mesh cases and claims filed against it. MDL No. 2326, in re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation was created in 2012 along with 6 other MDLs before U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for handling TVM injury cases.
Many Zimmer knee implant lawsuits have been filed against Zimmer Biomet. The latest lawsuit has been filed by a New Jersey man against the manufacturer of the artificial knee system in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff had to undergo a revision surgery and the device also left him with permanent injuries impacting his new replacement knee implant. Zimmer initiated a voluntary recall of its Persona Trabecular Metal Tibial Plate on January 28, 2015. The allegations faced by Zimmer include defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence and negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and fraud.
The first New Jersey Talcum Powder trial which began this January accused J&J of hiding the link between the talc-powders and cancer. The plaintiff alleged that J&J knew for decades that the talc-based powders contained asbestos which had the potential of developing mesothelioma (a kind of a tumor of the tissue that lines the lungs, stomach, heart and other organs) but failed to warn consumers to promote sales. The giant conglomerate denies that its talc-based powders ever contained asbestos and asserts claiming that the testing techniques used in this case were faulty.
The first Bard IVC Filter bellwether belonging to MDL: 2641 in re: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation is scheduled to convene on March 14 this year before U.S. federal Judge David G. Campbell, in the United States District Court District of Arizona.
The pre-trial discovery stage is in progress and the court recently disqualified one out of four plaintiffs’ medical experts who was a consultant to Bard and previously worked for Bard as an expert. Following this, the parties will be provided with a list of prospective jurors by the Court on February 23 next month, and a final pretrial conference is set for March 2, 2018, for counsel to challenge the Court’s excusal of any of the listed jurors. The final selection of nine jurors is scheduled for the morning of March 14, 2018.
The first bellwether will be tried in two phases. The first phase will determine liability and compensatory damages to be followed by a second phase where a decision will be taken whether punitive damages should be awarded.
About 3,000 IVC filter lawsuits are pending in the consolidated action wherein plaintiffs claim that due to manufacturing and design defects, Bard filters are more dangerous than other IVC filters and that Bard failed to forewarn about the higher health risks.
Despite numerous studies suggesting links between Mirena (and other similar intrauterine birth control devices that use hormone levonorgestrel release) and pseudotumor cerebri (intracranial hypertension-IIH) and being the subject of several Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) product liability lawsuits, Bayer Healthcare has shown no indications of updating the labels of Mirena IUD to adequately warn about a possible PTC link which includes symptoms like headaches, vision loss, and ringing of the ears.
No formal warning has yet been issued by the FDA to warn about the risk of PTC posed by the Mirena IUD, in spite of receiving hundreds of adverse event reports regarding complications from Mirena commonly involving side effects associated with PTC or IIH.
In April 2017, MDL No. 2767, (In Re: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation [No. II], was established under Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Currently, more than 200 complaints are a part of this MDL and allege that the pharmaceutical manufacturer minimized the link between the Mirena IUD and the risk of serious brain injuries, including pseudotumor cerebri, benign intracranial hypertension, and idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Another product liability lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and its Ethicon subsidiary, wherein the plaintiff alleged that he had to undergo a revision surgery to have the Physiomesh removed after developing a hernia mesh bowel obstruction caused due to design defects linked to the mesh implant.
The case will be a part of the other 469 centralized claims before U.S. District Judge Richard Story in the Northern District of Georgia under MDL No.2782: In re Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation. The plaintiff alleges that Ethicon was aware of numerous defects in the Product, despite this it manufactured, marketed, and distributed the product with the intent they would be implanted in patients, knowing very well it could cause injury and harm to the patients.
On January 16, 2018, the court released a Practice and Procedure Order requiring the Plaintiffs’ Profile Form submission no later than March 1, 2018. Henceforth, the Plaintiffs have to file a Profile Form within 60 days of their filing along with copies or electronic files of all medical records in their possession, custody, or control (including any medical records in their attorney’s possession) related to the claims and/or alleged injuries, including, but not limited to, records that support product identification with signed authorizations.
Also, Judge Story has called on the parties involved in the litigation to select a group of 24 claims, to serve as potential bellwether trials beginning in September 2019. The selections are to be made by May 15, with completed Plaintiff Fact Sheets for those cases due by June 15, and Defendant Fact sheets due by July 31.
The Judge also ordered for the second selection of 10 cases, five each from the parties involved, to be added to the pool by June 22. The Plaintiff Fact Sheets for those cases will be due by July 13, and the Defendant Fact Sheets will be due by August 21.
‘Plaintiff Fact Sheets’ release is expected soon for the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) lawsuits which include nearly 552 federally-filed Nexium, Prilosec, and Prevacid lawsuits, and other claims involving kidney damage from similar heartburn drugs. Judge Claire C. Cecchi, the presiding Judge of the centralized PPI lawsuits: MDL NO. 2757, called the lawyers of both parties to discuss what should be included on “Fact Sheets” that each plaintiff will be required to complete, providing detailed information about their injuries and claims. Other matters which included the entry of a direct filing order, scheduling of a “Science Day” and other matters were also to be discussed during the meeting.
In addition, there are more 227 similar lawsuits pending in state courts, with 127 pending in the Delaware Superior Court.
For smoother functioning and enabling judicial efficiency by eliminating potential delays associated with transferring proton pump inhibitor lawsuits from other federal district courts to the District of New Jersey, the court has allowed the direct filing of complaints as announced in the January 17th Case order Management release. Further, the Order states that complaints may only name a single plaintiff, with the exception of cases that include consortium and/or derivative plaintiffs and, in the event of a wrongful death action, the representatives and/or distributees of the estate. A Master Complaint submission is expected within fourteen days of case management order release giving the plaintiffs 45 days to file their Master Answer setting forth all defenses to the complaint.
Defendants named in the Risperdal gynecomastia litigation, Johnson & Johnson, and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary, will now have to compensate thousands of Risperdal gynecomastia plaintiffs after a Pennsylvania court ruling by a three-judge panel (Superior Court Judges Jack A. Panella, Alice Beck Dubow and Kate Ford Elliott) ruled that plaintiffs may ask courts to apply the laws of their home states instead of the state in which the case is being tried or the defendant’s home state as they overruled a 2015 ruling in which, though the plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages, he was barred from receiving punitive damages as the judge had applied the New Jersey Law. This ruling may set the path for several other like cases where the New Jersey Law applied did not permit plaintiffs to pursue punitive damages in product liability cases that involve medications approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
Just when Xarelto plaintiff attorneys were rejoicing and preparing on the lines of the first Philadelphia Xarelto trial which brought in the first ever win for the plaintiffs, the verdict was reversed. The $28 million jury verdict was awarded to the plaintiff Lynn Hartman who suffered gastrointestinal bleeding allegedly caused by the defendants', Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson, subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals' blood thinner Xarelto. The allegation which won the verdict was based on the grounds of failing to adequately warn about the risks of the blood-thinner Xarelto.
However, Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos reversed the decision based on a very narrow issue related to the plaintiff’s prescribing physician. The plaintiff attorney has informed that the decision would be appealed, on the other hand, the defendant’s spokesperson states that the companies have always warned of bleeding events and will continue to defend against allegations made in this litigation.
Xarelto lawsuits are centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon as a part of MDL- 2592 Xarelto Products Liability Litigation. Currently, more than 22,000 Xarelto cases are pending in several courts across the country.
The Johnson & Johnson’s Talcum powder case in which the verdict of $72 million was dismissed in October 2017 was put forth for an appeal by the family of the plaintiff, an Alabama woman who developed ovarian cancer due to the long-term use of J&J’s Talcum powder. This case was the first case to win financial damages in J&J’s Talcum lawsuits; however, the verdict was dismissed by the Missouri Eastern District Court on the grounds that the jurisdiction was improper (based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California), according to which the plaintiffs may only file suit in jurisdictions where defendants are headquartered or where their injuries are alleged to have occurred. This decision came in two weeks after the Appeals Court denied their motion for a rehearing.
J&J is defending nearly 5,500 talcum powder lawsuits, filed by women who claim they developed ovarian cancer due to the long-term use of products promoted for feminine hygiene by the defendant. The motley of lawsuits are filed under MDL No. 2738- In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation formed in 2016, presided by Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J./ Hon. Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; hundreds of lawsuits are also filed in Missouri's 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; cases are also filed in state courts in California and Delaware.
A request has been put before the New Jersey Supreme Court by both parties of Abilify litigation for the creation of a Multicounty Litigation (MCL) to ensure that future cases filed end up in Bergen County to join the 47 others now pending before Superior Court Judge James DeLuca. The nine cases filed earlier in this county were consolidated in March 2016 and since then the remaining cases along with the existing lawsuits have advanced considerably and a bellwether track has been established by the judge; the first trial is expected to begin by the end of 2018. This request for MCL formation is viewed to be beneficial to all sides as it would provide a fair and more convenient, cost-effective process for all parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court.
Abilify makers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, had developed the drug to treat bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are now facing allegations by hundreds of plaintiffs which include breach of warranty, negligence, violation of federal drug-related statutes and regulations, negligent misrepresentation, violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent concealment, and punitive damages.
More than 400 Abilify product liability lawsuits are filed nationwide under MDL No. 2734 (in Re: Abilify Compulsive Behavior Products Liability Litigation), centralized in October 2016, presided by Chief Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Recent developments indicate that the first bellwether trials may be delayed from their originally scheduled start in June 2018.
Further, Judge Rodgers has ordered to meet with the parties involved in the litigation to discuss and schedule additional bellwether trials and plan a proposal to start presenting claims involving multiple plaintiffs before the same jury during consolidated trials.
Bayer received good news beginning of the year as the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in its favor regarding an Essure Lawsuit filed by 92 women for injuries allegedly caused by the implanted Essure coils. The Missouri court ruled in the defendant’s favor stating it lacked jurisdiction over non-residents. This decision has affected the proceeding of this lawsuit in the Missouri Court for now as only seven out of the 92 plaintiffs were from Missouri. Bayer requested the court to transfer non-Missouri plaintiffs to appropriate venues and also stated that all claims were preempted by the federal law, which meant they were immune from the lawsuits because the FDA approved the medical device.
However, the plaintiffs have filed a petition stating that chief investigators for the device’s clinical studies were from Missouri, its national marketing campaign was based there, and clinical trials were conducted in this state. The Supreme Court judges have allowed the lower court to consider plaintiffs’ amended petition.
Despite winning its first trial in November 2017, Testim gel makers, Auxilium, settled a lawsuit for an undisclosed amount, just days before the trial in Pennsylvania’s Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Allegations put forth by the plaintiff who suffered a stroke (induced by Testim gel use) included marketing an unreasonably dangerous product and misleading the consumers by false marketing gimmicks which characterized low testosterone levels normally experienced by ageing men as an “epidemic” and a “syndrome” called “Low-T”.
Over 6,000 testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) lawsuits have been centralized under MDL No. 2545 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly. Three bellwethers convened last year resulted in two wins for the plaintiffs totalling about $290 million to be paid by AndroGel maker AbbVie and one win for Auxilium.
The FDA has shown no signs or indications regarding any ban on transvaginal mesh devices used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with the news pouring in about a recommended ban requested by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the U.K.
NICE requested the ban indicated for the treatment of POP and not SUI and expects a virtual ban as the news spreads.
Although thousands of transvaginal lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. since 2008, with mixed verdicts announced for both parties, and manufacturers settling a significant number of claims, the FDA has no intention of considering a ban. The agency did reclassify the device in 2016 as a Class III (high risk) product for the treatment of POP, making them ineligible for the 510(k) clearance program.
Portola Pharmaceuticals received news of a second-time delay from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the approval of AndexXa, an antidote developed to monitor uncontrollable bleeding linked to Xarelto and Eliquis. The delay is caused due to some additional data required by the FDA, shifting the expected approval date from February 3, 2018, to May 4, 2018.
Prior to this, the FDA had delayed the August of 2016 approval, when it reverted requesting more information about Portola’s manufacturing and additional data for inclusion of two other anticoagulants in the label: edoxaban and enoxaparin. The makers of anticoagulants Xarelto and Eliquis, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson as well as Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, have been funding Portola to develop the antidote in view that it will bring the much awaited legal respite be ‘the legal sheath’ to help them evade new lawsuits tied to the bleeding risks of their drugs.
Previously three verdicts have been announced in favor of the defendants by Honorable Eldon E. Fallon presiding MDL – 2592: Xarelto Products Liability Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Eli Lilly and Company, the maker of Axiron used in the treatment of low testosterone levels is one of the defendants in the over 6,000 centralized testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) lawsuits belonging to MDL No. 2545 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly. The company announced a settlement of all the Axiron cases filed against it in the MDL, a month before the start of its first bellwether trial, resulting in the cancellation of two upcoming trial dates in January and March by Judge Kennelly.
The first AndroGel bellwether trial announced in favor of the plaintiff awarding him $150 million as punitive damages and no compensatory damages in June 2017 was tossed by the U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, overseeing 6,000 plus testosterone replacement lawsuits centralized under MDL 2545 (In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation). The $150 million verdict was announced to punish AbbVie for its conduct in spite of acknowledging that the plaintiff’s heart attack was not caused by AbbVie’s product in question. This decision was based on the fact that the federal judge found the jury conclusions “logically incompatible.’’ He further ordered a new trial for this case to be convened on March 5, with a pretrial status conference scheduled for February 28th.