In this antitrust class action, direct purchasers of Neurontin alleged that Pfizer violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in an anti-competitive scheme of illegal off-label promotion of the drug combined with patent litigation to delay generic competition and maintain monopoly prices. Plaintiffs sought in camera review of Pfizer's privileged documents under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, asserting that the documents would show the patent suits were part of a profit-protection scheme and that Pfizer made misrepresentations to courts about its off-label activities. The court outlined the Third Circuit's two-step framework: a lenient good-faith factual basis for in camera inspection followed by a prima facie showing that the client was committing or intending a fraud or crime and that the communications furthered it. Applying this standard, the court held that plaintiffs had not met the threshold for documents concerning the filing and prosecution of the '479 patent litigation but had established a sufficient basis regarding alleged misrepresentations to the court about the timing and extent of illegal promotion, warranting in camera review of those materials.
This case is a patent infringement action brought by Warner-Lambert, the maker of brand-name Neurontin (gabapentin), against generic manufacturers Teva, IVAX, and Eon over U.S. Patent No. 6,054,482, which covers a low-lactam manufacturing process for the epilepsy drug. The opinion addresses Warner-Lambert’s motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses of patent misuse and unclean hands under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The court explains the history of multiple gabapentin patents, Orange Book listings, and the five-year prosecution delay of the ’482 Patent, then analyzes whether that delay can support a misuse defense by reference to policy principles in Woodbridge v. United States while distinguishing the disfavored doctrine of prosecution laches. It concludes that the unclean-hands allegations lack the required connection to the infringement claims at issue.
This case concerns Warner-Lambert's motion under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) to strike Purepac's affirmative defenses of patent misuse and unclean hands and to dismiss its counterclaims for monopolization, attempted monopolization, and unfair competition in ongoing gabapentin patent infringement litigation. The court denied the motion. It held that Purepac sufficiently alleged an overall scheme by Warner-Lambert to delay generic entry through withholding prior art from the PTO, false Orange Book certifications for the '476 and '479 patents, and filing objectively baseless infringement suits, which could qualify as a pattern of sham litigation outside Noerr-Pennington protection.
This case is a proposed nationwide class action brought by plaintiff Michael Coppolino against Total Call International, Inc., a seller of prepaid calling cards, alleging that the company violated consumer protection laws and was unjustly enriched by failing to clearly disclose various fees, charges, and billing decrements that reduced the cards' value. Defendant moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds, arguing that a prior Tennessee class action settlement (Lopez) that released claims arising from the sale of prepaid calling cards during the class period barred the present suit. The court examined whether the Tennessee Consent Decree's release applied, considering differences in the claims asserted, the adequacy of notice provided to class members (including the lack of opt-out information and limited publication), and the fairness of the settlement terms, which awarded no monetary relief to class members while directing most funds to cy pres recipients and attorneys. The court noted deficiencies in the Lopez notice and settlement structure, including that it was published only in English and provided no direct benefit to class members, and concluded that these issues raised due process concerns preventing the prior judgment from extinguishing the current claims for damages.
This case involves a commercial dispute in which International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) purchased paprika from McCormick that was later found to be infested with cigarette beetles, allegedly contaminating IFF's barbeque seasoning product and causing economic losses including costs to source replacements for a customer. IFF sued for breach of express and implied warranties, products liability, and fraudulent concealment. McCormick moved for partial summary judgment on the products liability and fraud claims. The court analyzed whether the economic loss doctrine under New Jersey or Texas law bars the tort-based claims in this contractual setting between commercial parties, focusing on whether purely economic damages from defective goods can be recovered in tort or must be pursued under warranty and contract theories.
The case concerned former members of a merged electrical workers union local who held vested rights under a predecessor pension plan to elect lump-sum retirement benefits; after the merger of the locals and their plans, the surviving welfare plan was amended to eliminate medical benefits for any participant who chose the lump-sum pension option. Plaintiffs sued the merged plans and trustees, alleging that the amendment violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule by diminishing accrued pension rights. Following a bench trial, the court found that the lump-sum election right had accrued and vested before the merger and that conditioning welfare eligibility on forgoing that right amounted to an impermissible reduction of pension benefits. The court rejected the defense that the change was merely to the non-vested welfare plan, holding that the practical effect on the pension benefit controlled under ERISA.