Rewrite this below with no grammatical errors in the same tone. In the case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Mutual Pharmaceutical. Therefore, here's why and on what basis; First, the decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that federal law preempts state law in this case. Now, on what basis, and why according to case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. v. Bartlett, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal law and state law Federal Preemption: The central issue was whether federal law, which governs drug labeling, preempts state law claims of design defects for generic drugs. The Court held that because Mutual Pharmaceutical Company was required by federal law to use the same labeling as the brand-name drug Clinoril, they could not change the warning labels on the generic drug without violating federal law. Next, a Impossibility Preemption Doctrine: Under the Supremacy Clause, if it is impossible for a private party to comply with both federal and state requirements, federal law preempts state law. Since Mutual could not legally alter the drug's design or labeling, fulfilling the state-design defect requirement would have forced them to violate federal law