in all promotional material or labeling for Zyderm”). 11 . See, e.g., Michael, 46 F.3d at 1324—25; Martello v. Ciba Vision Corp., 42 F.3d at 1168-69; King v. Collagen Corp., 983 F.2d 1130, 1135 (1st Cir.) (op. of Torruella, J., joined by Aldrich and Campbell, JJ.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 84, 126 L.Ed.2d 52 (1993); see also Talbott v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 63 F.3d 25, 30-31 (1st Cir.1995) (adopting analysis of district court, which held implied warranty claim preempted); Mendes v. Medtronic, Inc., 18 F.3d 13, 18-19 (1st Cir.1994) (finding implied warranty claim preempted for Class III device not subject to PMA process); Duncan v. Iolab Corp., 12 F.3d 194, 195 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (same for intraocular lens); cf. Feldt v. Mentor Corp., 61 F.3d 431, 437 & n. 9 (5th Cir.1995)
holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity holding that the plaintiffs breach of express warranty claim was preempted because it would require a plaintiff to persuade a jury that the infuse device was not safe and effective  contrary to the fdas approval but failing to address the fact that the fda did not approve the offlabel use holding that implied warranty claim relating to defective design was not preempted with respect to class iii device that had not undergone pma process and distinguishing michael on the ground that the device at issue in michael had undergone the pma process holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding the implied warranty is implied in all residential leases in california