BIO filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, urging the Court to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert opinion, thereby ensuring that Delaware’s standard for the admission of such evidence remains consistent with the federal Daubert standard. The brief asserts that the Superior Court admitted “fundamentally unreliable” expert testimony that included evidence that was not specific to the product at issue (ranitidine) and did not consider the threshold dose necessary to cause disease. By allowing admission of such testimony, the Superior Court deviated from its gatekeeping role under Delaware law. In line with the Daubert standard, Delaware law adheres to the same rigorous standard of probing expert testimony for reliability and relevancy before going to a jury. Among businesses, Delaware is a state historically favored for incorporation because of its courts' reputation for fair, reliable, and predictable application of the law. Inconsistent and erroneous application of the Daubert standard poses a threat to these businesses and the business community at large, particularly in cases involving products liability. Threats such as forum shopping could increase if the Superior Court's Order stands, exposing Delaware to an influx of future plaintiffs seeking to profit from a more lenient application of the admissibility standard.