Justia Drugs & Biotech Opinion Summaries

The case centers on a dispute involving a pharmaceutical company founded by the plaintiff, who also served as its CEO. The plaintiff obtained investment from a Canadian entity controlled by one of the defendants, who later became a director. The company entered into a profitable licensing agreement for a drug, and the plaintiff claims he was personally entitled to 30% of the profits based on an oral agreement. The investor and his affiliates, however, allege that the plaintiff wrongfully diverted corporate assets by taking this share. After disagreements arose, the investor replaced himself and another director on the board with officers from his own affiliates, who began investigating the alleged diversion. In response, the plaintiff initiated litigation, asserting that the investigation was a breach of fiduciary duty and that the investor and his affiliates acted in bad faith for their own benefit.Previously, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware was asked to consider several claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference against the investor, his affiliates, and the two new directors. The investor’s affiliate moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court found it had no jurisdiction over the affiliate. The court also examined whether it had jurisdiction over the investor for claims other than those related to his service as a director, finding it did not because the complaint failed to state a viable claim against him in that capacity.In the present decision, the Court of Chancery held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the investor’s affiliate and over the investor in his non-director capacities, dismissing those claims without prejudice. The court further dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy claims against the directors and the investor in his director capacity, finding no viable claims were stated. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment regarding his right to the profits from the drug to proceed against the company, provided an amended complaint is filed naming the company as a proper defendant. View "MacLaughlan v. Einheiber" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company developed a sublingual opioid painkiller, DSUVIA, which could only be administered in medically supervised settings due to safety concerns and was subject to a strict FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). The company marketed DSUVIA with the slogan “Tongue and Done” at investor conferences, accompanied by additional disclosures about the drug’s limitations and REMS requirements. After the FDA issued a warning letter objecting to the slogan as potentially misleading under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, several shareholders filed suit, alleging that the slogan misled investors about the complexity of administering DSUVIA and the drug’s limited market potential.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the shareholders’ complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, but did not rule on whether the statements were false or misleading. The plaintiffs were given two opportunities to amend their complaint, but the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity because a reasonable investor would not interpret the “Tongue and Done” slogan in isolation, but would consider the context provided by accompanying disclosures and other available information. The court also held that the FDA’s warning letter did not establish falsity under securities law, as the standards and intended audiences differ. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs did not plead a strong inference of scienter, as the facts suggested the company’s officers acted in good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Sneed v. Talphera, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves BioPoint, Inc., a life sciences consulting firm, which accused Catapult Staffing, LLC, and Andrew Dickhaut of misappropriating trade secrets, confidential business information, and engaging in unfair trade practices. BioPoint alleged that Catapult, with the help of Dickhaut and Leah Attis (a former BioPoint employee and Dickhaut's fiancée), used BioPoint's proprietary information to recruit candidates and secure business from BioPoint's clients, including Vedanta and Shire/Takeda.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts handled the initial proceedings. The jury found Catapult liable for misappropriating BioPoint's trade secrets concerning three candidates and two clients, and for tortious interference with BioPoint's business relationship with one candidate. The jury awarded BioPoint $312,000 in lost profits. The judge, in a subsequent bench trial, found Catapult liable for unjust enrichment and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (chapter 93A), awarding BioPoint $5,061,444 in damages, which included treble damages for willful and knowing conduct, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but reduced the judge's award by $157,068, as it found that BioPoint could not recover both lost profits and unjust enrichment for the same placement. The court also reversed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability on Andrew Dickhaut, ruling that he could not be held liable for profits he did not receive. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine Dickhaut's individual liability. View "BioPoint, Inc. v. Dickhaut" on Justia Law

Insulet Corp. and EOFlow are medical device manufacturers that produce insulin pump patches. Insulet began developing its OmniPod product in the early 2000s, and EOFlow started developing its EOPatch product after its founding in 2011. Around the same time, four former Insulet employees joined EOFlow. In 2023, reports surfaced that Medtronic had started a process to acquire EOFlow. Soon after, Insulet sued EOFlow for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin all technical communications between EOFlow and Medtronic in view of its trade secrets claims.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts temporarily restrained EOFlow from disclosing products or manufacturing technical information related to the EOPatch or OmniPod products. The court then granted Insulet’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding strong evidence that Insulet is likely to succeed on the merits of its trade secrets claim, strong evidence of misappropriation, and that irreparable harm to Insulet crystallized when EOFlow announced an intended acquisition by Medtronic. The injunction enjoined EOFlow from manufacturing, marketing, or selling any product that was designed, developed, or manufactured, in whole or in part, using or relying on alleged trade secrets of Insulet.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s order. The court found that the district court had failed to address the statute of limitations, lacked a tailored analysis as to what specific information actually constituted a trade secret, and found it hard to tell what subset of that information was likely to have been misappropriated by EOFlow. The court also found that the district court had failed to meaningfully engage with the public interest prong. The court concluded that Insulet had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and other factors for a preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "INSULET CORP. v. EOFLOW, CO. LTD. " on Justia Law

This case involves a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Gilead Life Sciences, Inc., and its development and sale of a drug, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), to treat HIV/AIDS. The approximately 24,000 plaintiffs allege that they suffered adverse effects from TDF, including skeletal and kidney damage. Gilead developed a similar but chemically distinct drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), which could potentially treat HIV/AIDS with fewer side effects. The plaintiffs claim that Gilead delayed the development of TAF to maximize profits from TDF.The plaintiffs do not claim that TDF is defective. Instead, they assert a claim for ordinary negligence, arguing that Gilead's decision to delay the development of TAF breached its duty of reasonable care to users of TDF. They also assert a claim for fraudulent concealment, arguing that Gilead had a duty to disclose information about TAF to users of TDF.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, partially granted Gilead's petition for a writ of mandate and held that the plaintiffs could proceed with their negligence claim. The court concluded that a manufacturer's legal duty of reasonable care can extend beyond the duty not to market a defective product. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision denying Gilead's motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs' claim for fraudulent concealment. The court held that Gilead had no duty to disclose information about TAF to users of TDF, as TAF was not available as an alternative treatment at the time. View "Gilead Tenofovir Cases" on Justia Law

A case involving Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund and Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, as plaintiffs-appellants, and Steven H. Collis, Richard W. Gochnauer, Lon R. Greenberg, Jane E. Henney, M.D., Kathleen W. Hyle, Michael J. Long, Henry W. McGee, Ornella Barra, D. Mark Durcan, and Chris Zimmerman, as defendants-appellees, was heard by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. The plaintiffs, shareholders in AmerisourceBergen Corporation, brought a derivative complaint against the directors and officers of the Corporation alleging that they failed to adopt, implement, or oversee reasonable policies and practices to prevent the unlawful distribution of opioids. The plaintiffs claimed that this led to AmerisourceBergen incurring liability exceeding $6 billion in a 2021 global settlement related to the Company's role in the opioid epidemic. The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware initially dismissed the complaint, basing its decision on a separate federal court finding that AmerisourceBergen had complied with its anti-diversion obligations under the Controlled Substances Act. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the lower court had erred in considering the federal court's findings as it changed the date at which demand futility should be considered and violated the principles of judicial notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lebanon County Employees' Retirement Fund v. Collis" on Justia Law

Liposomal bupivacaine is a nonopioid pain medication that Pacira manufactures under the name EXPAREL; it is a local anesthetic administered at the time of surgery to control post-surgical pain. As of 2020, EXPAREL sales represented nearly all of Pacira’s total revenue. Pacira complains that the defendants, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, its journal, its editor, and authors published statements in a variety of forms, conveying their view that EXPAREL is “not superior” to standard analgesics or provides “inferior” pain relief.The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Pacira’s suit for trade libel. Opinion statements are generally nonactionable. A “fair and natural” reading of the statements at issue shows that these are nonactionable subjective expressions. Pacira’s allegations boil down to disagreements about the reliability of the methodology and data underlying the statements; “a scientific conclusion based on nonfraudulent data in an academic publication is not a ‘fact’ that can be proven false through litigation.” Pacira failed to identify any aspect of the Articles, a Continuing Medical Education program, or a Podcast that “bring their conclusions outside the protected realm of scientific opinion.” View "Pacira Biosciences Inc v. American Society of Anesthesiologists Inc" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint against Karoypharm Therapuetics, Inc. and its corporate officers (collectively, Defendants) alleging securities fraud in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10-b, 18 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.Plaintiff-investors brought this action following a decline in Karyopharm's stock price, alleging that Karyopharm materially misled them as to the safety and efficacy of the company's cancer-fighting drug candidate selinexor. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiffs failed adequately to plead scienter with respect to Defendants' statements about a certain study of the drug as a treatment for pinta-refractory multiple myeloma. The First Circuit affirmed on other grounds, holding that Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege an actionable statement or omission with respect to the trial disclosures, and therefore, dismissal was appropriate. View "Thant v. Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc." on Justia Law

Quidel Corporation (Quidel) petitioned for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition to direct the trial court to vacate its order granting summary adjudication. Quidel contended the trial court incorrectly concluded a provision in its contract with Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Beckman) was an invalid restraint on trade in violation of Business and Professions Code, section 16600. Quidel argued the trial court improperly extended the holding from Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal.4th 937 (2008) beyond the employment context to a provision in the parties’ 2003 BNP Assay Agreement (the Agreement). In its original, published opinion, the Court of Appeal concluded it was not, granted the petition and issued a writ instructing the trial court to vacate the December 2018 order granting summary judgment on the first cause of action. The California Supreme Court then granted review of the Court of Appeal's opinion and ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., S256927. On August 3, 2020, the Supreme Court issued Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 1130 (2020), which held “a rule of reason applies to determine the validity of a contractual provision by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business.” The Quidel matter was transferred back to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate its previous opinion and reconsider the case in light of Ixchel. The appellate court issued a new opinion in which it concluded the trial court’s decision was incorrect. The trial court was directed to vacate the December 7, 2018 order granting summary adjudication on the first cause of action. View "Quidel Corporation v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Granny Purps grows and provides medical marijuana to its 20,000 members, in compliance with state laws governing the production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. Santa Cruz County’s ordinance prohibits any medical cannabis operation from cultivating more than 99 plants; Granny’s dispensary was growing thousands of marijuana plants. The sheriff’s office went to the dispensary in June 2015, seized about 1,800 plants, and issued a notice of ordinance violation. Several months later, officers again went to the dispensary and took about 400 more marijuana plants. Granny sued, alleging conversion, trespass, and inverse condemnation and sought an order requiring the county to return the seized cannabis plants, The trial court dismissed.The court of appeal reversed. A government entity does not have to return seized property if the property itself is illegal but the Santa Cruz ordinance ultimately regulates land use within the county; it does not (nor could it) render illegal a substance that is legal under state law. View "Granny Purps, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz" on Justia Law