Advancing New Claims Under the Lanham Act

28 July 2016 PharmaPatents Blog
Author(s): David A. Hickerson

Implementing unique litigation tactics, on June 15, 2016, Foley & Larder LLP filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) on behalf of Par Pharmaceutical and related parties (Par as “Complainants”).  The complaint, which is grounded in allegations of the unlawful importation of certain Potassium Chloride powder products into the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale after importation, seeks a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against Viva Pharmaceutical Inc., a Canadian company, Virtus Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a Florida-based company, and Virtus Pharmaceuticals OPCO II, LLC, a Tennessee-based company (collectively, “Virtus”) (all together, “Respondents”), in addition to their respective agents and related companies.  While 337 complaints alleging patent infringement, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement are common, this is the first 337 complaint based on the unfair act of a competitor’s marketing of an unapproved drug.

On July 21, 2016, the ITC issued a press release stating that it “voted to institute an investigation of certain potassium chloride powder products” in response to the June 15th complaint.  The press release further specified each of the named Respondents as the subjects of the investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1013).  On July 22, 2016, the ITC assigned the investigation to Administrative Law Judge MaryJoan McNamara.  Judge McNamara will make an initial determination of the case as to whether Respondents violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act.  Upon completion, the Commission will review Judge McNamara’s decision.

The product at issue is a prescription medication for the treatment of prophylaxis of hypokalemia with or without metabolic alkalosis.  Hypokalemia is a deficiency of potassium in the blood stream and it is potentially life-threatening when not treated.  Although cases such as this typically invoke FDA jurisdiction under the FDCA, the Supreme Court, in Pom Wonderful,1 ruled that the FDCA does not preclude a Lanham Act claim alleging unfair competition arising from false or misleading product descriptions.  Rather, “the FDCA and the Lanham Act complement each other” in this area of the law.2

Par sells the only FDA-approved Potassium Chloride powder product on the market.  However, despite this information, Respondents maintain, on average, a sixty-five percent hold on the market.  The complaint alleges that this grasp on the market is due to Respondents’ importation of the drug as a dietary supplement, when, in reality, Respondents sell the product as a prescription drug in the U.S. market.  Complainants allege that this method of importation, and subsequent false labeling of the product, misleads consumers into purchasing Respondents’ product, which ultimately harms Par, as well as the public interest.

The complaint further alleges that the disparity in the share of the market is due to Respondents’ unfair competition of false and misleading advertising, packaging, marketing, promotion, distribution, and sale of the product.  Complainants specify that the packaging fails to include a disclaimer that the product is not FDA-approved, that it contains an Rx symbol on the front of the packaging, appears like a legitimately approved product, and is listed as a legitimate and approved product on the websites of wholesale distributors, GPOs, IDNs, and price lists.  Importantly, Respondents’ product is listed alongside Complainants’, giving the appearance to buyers and consumers that the products are interchangeable, if not identical.  To bolster this representation, Virtus’s website states that “[a]ll of the products at Virtus Pharmaceuticals follow strict FDA guidelines and operating procedures,” which Par alleges is literally false.  These actions and statements, coupled with Respondents’ unlawful importation of the Potassium Chloride powder product, constitute the grounds for Respondents’ alleged violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)).

With regard to injury, Par claims significant monetary investment costs in developing, obtaining approval for, purchasing equipment for, and manufacturing the Potassium Chloride powder product.  In addition to these costs, Complainants state that the unlawful importation and subsequent false and misleading advertising of Respondents’ product has caused and continues to cause substantial injury to the domestic industry.

This new 337 complaint is groundbreaking in its alleged unfair act of a competitor’s marketing of an unapproved drug, and provides additional protection for pharmaceutical companies that face this type of unfair competition.

1 Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228, 2233 (2014) (“There is no statutory text or established interpretive principle to support the contention that the FDCA precludes Lanham Act suits . . .”).

2 Id.

Please note Foley Summer Associate, Kara Nunez, was a contributing author on this post and the PharmaPatents Blog team thanks her for her contribution.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.