This split ruling at least suggests that we need to look at these cases on an individual basis, as we have done in the past.

Even in long-term use cases, the plaintiffs are going to have to show that it was this drug and not their pre-existing risk factors and medical conditions that caused their heart attacks. That's just going to be a steep hill for these plaintiffs to climb.

We believe they are two separate cases with two separate sets of facts. They are different individuals with different doctors and different medical histories. But we understand that the judge was inclined to consolidate the cases and we're ready to move forward.

There really is no way to extrapolate [the verdict to other trials]. We defend these cases one at a time, and that's what we're going to continue to do.

It shows the ruling is basically going to be the government's proposed order, consisting of a two-way split and interim remedies.

There is at least one federal judge ruling on the same issue.