class action certification in other products liability cases. See id. at 852-54, 856. Although Daikon Shield pointed out many of the problems common to products liability litigation in meeting Rule 23’s class certification requirements, we cannot conclude that Daikon Shield creates an absolute bar to such certification in this circuit. As leading commentators have pointed out, the case was unusual in that there was simply no plaintiff or plaintiffs counsel ready, willing, and able to represent the class. See, e.g., 3 Newberg & Conte, supra, § 17.12 at 17-31. In addition, Daikon Shield involved multiple defendants and multiple marketing schemes, unlike the present case where a single manufacturer marketed one drug over a limited period of time. Compare Daikon Shield, 693 F.2d at 856 (<HOLDING>), with In re Copley Pharmaceutical, 158 F.R.D.
holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding district court erroneously certified class where manufacturer advertised in various medical journals and tradeshow advertisements to different doctors holding the class too imprecise and speculative to be certified holding district court erroneously failed to consider copyrighted show as a whole holding the court was not required to decide the issue of whether the district court properly certified a rule 23b2 class because the court already concluded that the district court appropriately certified the class under rule 23b3 citing authority for the proposition that a court need only find that a class action may be maintained under any of the three subdivisions