When does a false advertising case create a right to a jury trial?

Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories,
Inc., — F.Supp.3d —-, 2016 WL 7223279, No. 13–12553 (D. Mass. Dec. 13,
The parties compete for the market in products used for
bowel preparation before colonoscopies, and each alleged that the other had
engaged in false advertising. Braintree’s moved to strike Ferring’s demand for
a jury trial.  “Parties have the right to
a jury trial when a statute or the Seventh Amendment so requires.” The Lanham
Act does not create such a right if a plaintiff seeks “the remedy of an accounting
of defendant’s profits,” nor does Massachusetts Chapter 93A, the coordinate
state false advertsing law.
The key to the Seventh Amendment analysis here was whether the
remedy sought was legal or equitable in nature.  If legal, then there would be a right to a
jury trial; an equitable remedy can also be “of a legal nature” sufficient to
entitle a party to a jury trial.  “For
instance, an accounting of profits can act as a proxy for a legal claim in some
circumstances.” The court determined that it would apply the proxy rationale “if
1) the case involves similar products, 2) there is no adequate remedy at law
and 3) the products compete directly.”
Braintree argued that its requested disgorgement remedy was
equitable. Ferring was entitled to a jury trial with respect to its defenses to
Braintree’s counterclaims, which the parties agreed were legal in nature. But
the proxy argument was closer—the first two factors weighed in favor of finding
that Ferring’s claim was a proxy for legal damages. The competing treatments were
very similar, and there was no alternative legal remedy, because Braintree’s
purported false advertising began as soon as Ferring’s treatment entered the
market, “making it impossible for Ferring to measure its alleged losses by
decreased sales.”
However, it wasn’t clear if there was direct
competition.  Though the two products
perform the same function and were prescribed by the same doctors, and though Braintree’s
advertising directly targeted Fering’s product, there were other colonoscopy
preparation drugs on the market during the time period at issue.  [They’re direct substitutes.  They may be in head-to-head-to-head
competition, but reading an extra requirement of being the only two competitors
on the market into the standard for “direct competition” seems to need more
justification.  I guess the justification
would have to be that “direct competition” is a poor shorthand for the actual
standard: you have to be relatively sure that any of defendant’s sales were
taken from plaintiff’s hands, and that isn’t as clear when there are other
competitors in the market.  But then, if
there might well have been other victims, is disgorgement likely to be
appropriate?  I’m not sure how the
underlying standard for recovery interacts with the Seventh Amendment

The court decided to go ahead and have the jury trial first,
as required no matter what.  “If Ferring
has failed to show that it is entitled to a jury trial at that time, the Court
will treat the jury’s verdict as advisory.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2h5j3q7

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s