WASHINGTON, DC -- The United States Supreme Court (USSC) has agreed to rule on a seven-year-long lawsuit against a subsidiary of "Big Pharma" drug-maker Pfizer in a case that could have a farther-reaching impact.

The USSC yesterday agreed to hear Pfizer's petition to decide on whether federal pharmaceuticals regulation pre-empts state law in Warner-Lambert v. Kent. The original suit was filed against Warner-Lambert, now part of Pfizer, by Michigan plaintiffs against diabetes drug Rezulin in 2000 for harmful side-effects.

New York federal district judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed the suit in 2005, citing a state law that shielded products regulated by the FDA from state-based product-liability lawsuits. New York's 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it, arguing the lower court's pre-emption conclusion was incorrect.

Conservative legal groups are pleased with the latest news, having argued that the overturning violates a recent Supreme Court ruling known as "Buckman." In it the USSC says federal law pre-empts lawsuits arising from harm based on drug-maker fraud on the FDA.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) had urged the USSC two months ago to hear the case and ultimately overturn the Court of Appeals' overturn of the lower-court dismissal. The WLF argued that the Court of Appeals wrongly decided the case was "distinguishable" from the Buckman ruling.

If the USSC overturns the Court of Appeals ruling, as many expect, it could affect similar cases involving Merck's former blockbuster Vioxx, according to Ted Frank in a posting yesterday on litigation-watch blogsite Point of Law.

"Such a reversal would affect other cases where lower courts have disregarded Buckman, most notably Judge Higbee's Vioxx trials in New Jersey (where she permitted a punitive damages claim forbidden by Buckman to go forward) as well as act as an affirmance for the Texas Ledbetter Vioxx ruling," Frank wrote.

The WLF release criticized the appellate court ruling for further confusing a federal regulatory system. "The decision below, if allowed to stand, will throw a monkey wrench into the entire FDA product-approval regime," stated Chief Counsel Richard Samp.

The USSC will likely hear arguments early next year and rule by the end of June 2008.