tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post8366626605801775122..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: Another drug equivalence claim fails to persuadeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-58176499167293869662009-11-16T19:56:37.934-05:002009-11-16T19:56:37.934-05:00Well, there wasn't an explicit tests prove cla...Well, there wasn't an explicit tests prove claim. Rather, the claim was that "substitutable" wasn't substantiated by comparison testing. I agree that in the drug context a substitutability claim necessarily implies some sort of substantiation, but I don't think that <em>comparative</em> testing is required. Because the defendant had plenty of evidence that its product contained the same active ingredient in roughly the right amounts, I think it met the baseline substantiation requirement.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-22925581719647976032009-11-16T17:52:55.195-05:002009-11-16T17:52:55.195-05:00How did the court grant SJ on the tests prove theo...How did the court grant SJ on the tests prove theories of the claims? Seems like there was proof cited of the absence of testing to create an issue of material fact. The court's conclusion towards the end of the opinion - that its not the defendant's burden to justify its claims with adequate testing (without citation to any authority) looks pretty wrong to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com