PharmaEdge:
"Clearly, pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to inform the public about the dangers of the products they sell. Twelve New Jerseyans, however, have provided us with news that that liability is limited. Just having a heart attack while taking Vioxx, at least in this case, is not sufficient to collect the Big Money."

The Uncooperative Blogger:
"I am glad it turned out this way, because I was afraid of what this would do to drug research and development in this country. There are allot of people out there, me being one, that suffer from illnesses that there is no known cure, or relief from. If the Jury went the other way, it could have caused companies to rethink investment in this field, or cause such a long delay in testing that it could have set us back a decade. So don’t start with that big pharma stuff with me. There are other reasons to be at the heels of 'Big Pharma' but this is not one of them."

Drugwonks:
"Merck has just been vindicated completely in the second Vioxx case, without nuance, qualification, or conditional subparagraphs attendant upon article A, clause 4, section f(ii), subsection d(5)(j)(14)(b). And so for at least today, America will not take from the children and give to the lawyers."

Fred Cohen:
"So, Merck clean-swept this case, coming away with a no-fault, no-damages-owed jury verdict. This was a pretty weak case scientifically, so the finding of no-fault in the plaintiff's death shouldn't be terribly surprising. What is more surprising, and what probably accounts for the positive market reaction, is the finding that Merck didn't mislead patients or commit fraud during its development and marketing of Vioxx. The plaintiffs apparently presented ample evidence to support their claims of malfeasance, so this verdict has to raise some doubt in the minds of other plaintiffs' lawyers. I think it makes the likelihood of a settlement for cases with prolonged exposure to Vioxx likely (that is no change in my opinion), but raises doubts as to Merck's eventual willingness to settle the borderline or clearly out-of-bounds cases. It's possible that Merck will continue the strategy of trying such cases until plaintiffs either realize that such suits are fruitless or agree to settlements on favorable terms for Merck. Either way, the outcome of the case is relatively good news for Merck, as it relieves some of the uncertainty in their intermediate-term liability exposure. But the biggest problem for Merck in the intermediate term isn't their liability exposure, it's their lack of exciting product, their employees' broken morale, their management's inability to do much right lately, and their difficulty in finding and retaining top talent to turn things around. This last factor will decide their ultimate fate. Merck has bled top talent like a stuck pig for the last couple of years, and they took with them the ivy-adorned cachet that Merck formerly touted to newbies. Merck needs some creative HR planning along with a strong PR campaign aimed at industry veterans to turn around this train."

Update -
Monty's Bluff:
"After today’s verdict in their favor, Merck is now 1 for 2 in its Vioxx trials. Given that the company faces over 6,500 product liability suits, their lawyers have little time to rest. Think about that number. 6,500. It will be a long time before Merck will be able to move on from Vioxx with that many suits being covered in local newspapers around the company.

I wonder if at the end of all this, Merck will end up pulling a Wyeth. You might recall that AHP (American Home Products) changed its name to Wyeth to escape the notoriety of the fen-phen diet drug problems. After 6,500 individual trials, if Merck stands by its plan to defend each lawsuit separately, the Merck name might not be one worth keeping."

Evan Schaeffer:
"If there's a winner on the plaintiffs' side, it's Mark Lanier, the lawyer who won the first trial for his client in Texas. He's looking pretty good right now. Even so, comparisons between Lanier and Chris Seeger, the plaintiff's lawyer in New Jersey, are unfair. Seeger is a competent lawyer who was well-prepared for his case. While there will be many theories as to why the results in the two cases might have been different, analyzing those results based solely on the respective lawyers is too simplistic. Behind the scenes, of course, that's exactly what plaintiffs' lawyers around the country will be doing. But aren't trash-talking and chest-thumping better left to rap stars, professional wrestlers, and U.S. Congressmen?"

The Settlement Channel:
"The Humeston case had some flaws that were pounded home by the defense, despite an otherwise excellent job by Attorney Chris Seeger. The defense did a good job of painting Humeston as someone with a long history of cardiac issues and stress and raised sufficient doubt over the impact of Vioxx on the heart attack he had. Not necessarily fair or accurate, but obviously effective, and who said life was fair."