“unapproved drug” claims fail post-Pom, but not challenge to “natural” claim

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hodges Consulting, Inc., 2016
WL 8856671, No. 16-cv-00906 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2016)
Hi-Tech and Hodges compete in the dietary supplement market
for body builders.  Hi-Tech sued for
patent infringement, as well as for false advertising. Hodges allegedly put
“designer steroids” in its products; if the allegations were true, then those
products likely contained a Schedule III controlled substance.  Hi-Tech further alleged that the relevant
product should be considered a “new drug” under the FDCA, not a dietary
The court found that some of Hi-Tech’s claims were
precluded, though not all.  Even after Pom Wonderful, there is preclusion “when
a Lanham Act claim would require a court to make determinations about the
safety, legality, and classification of new drugs that are more properly within
the exclusive purview of the FDA.”  Thus,
Hi-Tech’s allegations that Hodges improperly sold a “new drug” and a
“prescription drug” without FDA approval. 
The FDA must determine this issue in the first instance. The
“determination of whether a drug is ‘new,’ and whether it can be lawfully
marketed under the FDCA, involves complex issues of history, public safety, and
administrative priorities that Congress has delegated exclusively to the FDA.”
However, Hi-Tech also alleged that Hodges falsely marketed
its products as “natural dietary supplements when, in fact they contain …
Schedule III designer steroids.” Labeling a product a “dietary supplement” or
“natural dietary supplement” without providing any warning that it contains a
Schedule III substance or designer steroid might constitute false or misleading
advertising.  The court pointed out that
pro athletes have claimed to have accidentally ingested steroids. This wouldn’t
require determining whether the product shold have through the new drug
approval process (or some other regulatory process): regardless of whether it
was a supplement or a drug, Hodges couldn’t falsely or deceptively market it.

Hi-Tech’s Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
unfair competition claims survived to the precise extent that its Lanham Act
claims did.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2s36nWZ

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