Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 07 DECEMBER 2009

Eighth Circuit Rejects Innovator Liability Theory in "Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc."

Mayer Brown
Mayer Brown
Contributor
Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown

Mayer Brown is a leading international law firm positioned to represent the world’s major...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mayer Brown

On November 27, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that former brand name manufacturers of Reglan® (a prescription drug used to treat certain gastric disorders) could not be held liable for the injuries caused by their competitors’ generic versions of the drug.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published December 2, 2009

Keywords: Mensing, product liability, innovator liability, generic drug, metoclopramide, Reglan, Conte

On November 27, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that former brand name manufacturers of Reglan® (a prescription drug used to treat certain gastric disorders) could not be held liable for the injuries caused by their competitors' generic versions of the drug. In doing so, the Eighth Circuit became the first appellate court to reject the California decision in Conte v. Wyeth, Inc..

In Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., the plaintiff's doctor had prescribed Reglan® to treat plaintiff's diabetic gastroparesis. The pharmacy filled those prescriptions with generic versions of the drug (metoclopramide), pursuant to Minnesota's drug substitution statute. After four years of ingesting generic metoclopramide, plaintiff allegedly developed tardive dyskinesia. 

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from