Judge Rejects CooperSurgical Bid to Dismiss Clip Suit
A Connecticut court says a failure-to-warn claim over Filshie Clip birth control devices can proceed.
Updated on Nov. 4, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Do you think medical device companies should be held liable for failing to warn patients?
Judge Carletha Parkinson of the Waterbury Superior Court denied CooperSurgical Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in litigation alleging injuries from its Filshie Clips birth control device. The judge ruled the failure-to-warn claim is not preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because it is not based solely on violations of that law.
Why it matters
The ruling allows state product liability claims over Filshie Clips to move forward rather than being dismissed on federal preemption grounds. It signals that manufacturers of Class III medical devices may still face state-law warning claims even when federal regulation applies.
The Waterbury Superior Court issued a written order on November 3 denying CooperSurgical's motion for summary judgment, so the case continues. The extraction does not identify the plaintiffs' damages or whether a trial date has been set.
The players
CooperSurgical Inc.
CooperSurgical is a medical device company, a subsidiary of The Cooper Companies, that manufactures the Filshie Clips birth control device.
Carletha Parkinson
Carletha Parkinson is a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court who presides over the Waterbury Superior Court docket.
The details
The Connecticut Product Liability Claims rest on CooperSurgical's alleged duty to provide suitable warnings about the silicone-lined titanium Filshie Clips. Because the claim does not depend solely on violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the court found it is not preempted by federal law.
Timeline
November 3, 2026: Judge Carletha Parkinson issued the order denying CooperSurgical's summary judgment motion.
Legal Context
The ruling turns on whether the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts state failure-to-warn claims against Class III medical devices, a question courts address case by case. The Waterbury court's finding that the claim rests on an independent state-law duty to warn places it within that ongoing preemption debate.
Connecticut residents who used Filshie Clips may have state-law claims for inadequate warnings that now proceed past summary judgment. The ruling keeps those product liability routes open rather than barring them on federal preemption grounds.
The takeaway
Product liability claims over medical devices can survive federal preemption challenges when they rest on a state-law duty to warn. Patients and manufacturers alike should watch how courts draw that line, since it determines which claims reach a jury.
Further reading
For more on how courts handle these disputes, see the Law section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Harrismartin.
Live Poll
Do you think medical device companies should be held liable for failing to warn patients?
