Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP is pleased to announce that litigation partner Eric L. Zalud was named medical device Defense Attorney of the Year 2002 by Medmarc Mutual Insurance Company at the Fifteenth Annual Medical Device Seminar in Whistler, British Columbia.He was chosen from a medical device and pharmaceutical defense panel of over 375 attorneys, from across the U.S., Canada, U.K., Israel, and Australia.Medmarc Mutual Insurance Company was founded in 1979 and is one of the largest insurers of medical device companies in the world.
Zalud was recognized for significant achievements in medical device litigation over the past year, including a significant victory in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and other extremely favorable settlements on behalf of numerous medical device manufacturers.
Latest News
Social Media Might Have to Rethink Platform Design and Features as Courts Reject Communications Decency Act, Section 230 Defense
On April 10, 2026, on appeal from a motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not bar Massachusetts’s claims that Meta engaged in unfair business practices by creating a platform that was addictive to teens and failing to warn the public about it.
Law360 Highlights Benesch’s Continued Success Defeating Fake Price Markdown Class Actions
Law360 Pulse recently spotlighted Benesch’s latest appellate victory for retailers, detailing how the firm successfully defeated proposed class action claims …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court: Solvent Debtors Face Higher Hurdle to Avoid Default Interest Under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b)
Key Takeaways Following a recent decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, solvent debtors …
$2B Trade Secrets Verdict Overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a $2B jury award and ordered a new trial in a state trade secrets action. The justices held that the circuit court judge made four significant errors leading to Virginia’s largest jury award. Significantly, according to the justices, the circuit court judge put an improper burden of proof on defendants to show that its sales were unrelated to the misappropriation to avoid plaintiff being awarded defendant’s full sales revenue as opposed to the plaintiff having the burden to show defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.