Justia Drugs & Biotech Opinion Summaries

A group of pharmaceutical manufacturers that participate in the federal 340B drug pricing program challenged a new West Virginia law, S.B. 325, which imposed restrictions and penalties on manufacturers regarding the delivery of discounted drugs to contract pharmacies. The 340B program is a federal scheme where drug manufacturers provide discounts to designated health care providers (“covered entities”) in exchange for access to the Medicaid market. Dissatisfied with the federal program’s scope, West Virginia enacted S.B. 325, which specifically barred manufacturers from restricting delivery of 340B drugs to any location authorized by a covered entity (including contract pharmacies), and from requiring data submission as a condition for delivery, with significant penalties for violations.The manufacturers sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia seeking to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 325, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court found that the manufacturers were likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim, that they faced irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether S.B. 325 was preempted by federal law. The Fourth Circuit held that S.B. 325 likely interferes with the federal 340B program by imposing additional conditions on manufacturers solely because of their participation in a federal program, thereby intruding into a domain reserved for federal regulation. The court found that Congress had struck a careful bargain in the 340B program and that West Virginia’s law sought to alter that bargain in a way that conflicted with federal objectives and the enforcement scheme administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of S.B. 325. View "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. McCuskey" on Justia Law

A former employee of a pharmaceutical manufacturer brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging that the company improperly calculated and reported its “Best Price” for certain drugs to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as required under the Medicaid Rebate Statute. The plaintiff claimed that, during a period from 2005 to 2014, the company failed to aggregate multiple rebates and discounts given to different entities on the same drug, resulting in inflated “Best Price” reports and underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid. The complaint asserted that the company was subjectively aware that CMS interpreted the statute to require aggregation of all such discounts, especially after the company’s communications with CMS during a 2006–2007 rulemaking process and the company’s subsequent internal audit.After the government and several states declined to intervene, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the amended complaint, finding that, even under the subjective scienter standard established in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that the company acted with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of its reports. The district court also suggested that ambiguity in the statute precluded a finding of falsity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s allegations—including the company’s awareness of CMS’s interpretation of the rule, its targeted audit and compliance efforts, and its continued use of non-aggregated reporting—plausibly alleged the requisite subjective scienter under the False Claims Act. The court clarified that statutory ambiguity does not, at the pleading stage, negate scienter or falsity, and remanded for the district court to address other elements, including falsity, in the first instance. The Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC" on Justia Law

Dr. Timothy Baxter, while working for Indivior, a pharmaceutical company, distributed misleading information to Massachusetts’s Medicaid program about the safety of new opioid drugs. This led to his conviction for misdemeanor drug misbranding. Following his conviction, the Secretary of Health and Human Services banned him from participating in federal healthcare programs for five years. Baxter challenged this exclusion, arguing that his crime did not categorically relate to the delivery of an item or service under a state healthcare program.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, rejecting Baxter’s claims. Baxter then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the exclusion statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a), does not require a categorical approach. Instead, it employs a circumstance-specific approach, meaning it looks at the actual conduct of the individual rather than the elements of the statute of conviction. The court found that Baxter’s conduct—misbranding drugs to influence MassHealth’s coverage decisions—was related to the delivery of an item under a state healthcare program. Therefore, his exclusion was mandatory under the statute.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Baxter’s exclusion from federal healthcare programs. View "Baxter v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A father, Scott Williams, and his son, Taeyan Williams, were convicted by a federal jury of various drug-related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine. The case stemmed from an investigation into the disappearance of a drug dealer, Noah Smothers, who supplied drugs to Scott and Taeyan. A search of Scott's home revealed large quantities of drugs, firearms, and cash. Both Scott and Taeyan were found guilty of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute, while Scott was also convicted of additional charges related to methamphetamine and evidence destruction.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, despite his claim that law enforcement failed to knock and announce before entering. The court held that suppression was not the appropriate remedy. Scott and Taeyan were sentenced to 276 months and 150 months in prison, respectively, followed by five years of supervised release. Both appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Taeyan's conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support his possession with intent to distribute charges, based on his connection to the drugs found in Scott's home. The court also upheld the district court's denial of Scott's motion to suppress, citing exigent circumstances that justified the no-knock entry. Additionally, the court rejected Scott's request for a sentence reduction under the newly promulgated U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, advising him to seek relief through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Finally, the court found no improper delegation of judicial authority in the conditions of Scott's supervised release, affirming the district court's judgments in their entirety. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

BBC, owner of the FLANAX trademark in Mexico, and its sister company, Bayer, filed suit against Belmora, owner of the FLANAX trademark in the United States, contending that Belmora used the FLANAX mark to deliberately deceive Mexican-American consumers into thinking they were purchasing BCC’s product. The court concluded that the Lanham Act’s, 15 U.S.C. 1125, plain language contains no unstated requirement that a section 43(a) plaintiff have used a U.S. trademark in U.S. commerce to bring a Lanham Act unfair competition claim; the Supreme Court’s guidance in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. does not allude to one, and the court's prior cases either only assumed or articulated as dicta that such a requirement existed; and therefore, the district court erred in imposing such a condition precedent upon Bayer’s claims. The court also concluded that BCC has adequately pled a section 43(a) false association claim for purposes of the zone of interests prong; BCC's allegations reflect the claim furthers the section 45 purpose of preventing the deceptive and misleading use of marks in commerce within the control of Congress; and BCC has also alleged injuries that are proximately caused by Belmora’s violations of the false association statute. Therefore, the court held that BCC has sufficiently pled a section 43(a) false association claim to survive Belmora’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Because these statements are linked to Belmora’s alleged deceptive use of the FLANAX mark, the court is satisfied that BCC’s false advertising claim, like its false association claim, comes within the Act’s zone of interests. The court inferred that the alleged advertisements contributed to the lost border sales pled by BCC, and that the claim also satisfies Lexmark’s proximate cause prong. Further, the court agreed with Bayer that the district court erred in overturning the TTAB’s section 14(3) decision because it read a use requirement into the section that is simply not there. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG" on Justia Law

Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., against Purdue, alleging that the company was involved in a fraudulent scheme regarding the equianalgesic ratio of OxyContin. The court declined realtors' invitation to read United States ex rel. Siller v. Becton Dickinson & Co., so as to render it internally inconsistent and at odds with the public disclosure bar’s purpose. Indeed, by foreshadowing the court’s conclusion in this case, Siller itself eschews the interpretation relators urge. Here, relators’ claims are based on facts their counsel learned in the course of making the prior public disclosure of Purdue’s allegedly fraudulent scheme. The court held, consistent with its reasoning in Siller and the public disclosure bar’s purpose, that the district court correctly dismissed the relators’ suit. View "United States ex rel. May v. Purdue Pharma L.P." on Justia Law