proof of lost market share needs something extra to be irreparable harm

BioTE Medical, LLC v. Jacobsen, 2019 WL 3943166, No.
18-cv-866 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2019)
“BioTE provides hormone replacement therapy … through a
method called Pellet Therapy,” using an allegedly custom and proprietary
formula using “bio-identical and natural ingredients that act to maintain a
patient’s hormone levels throughout the day.” It sued defendants, alleging that
they were unlawfully manufacturing and selling unapproved new drugs instead of lawful
“compounding” and were engaging in false advertising in violation of the Lanham
Act. (It also alleged RICO violations which we can ignore because they are RICO
allegations.)
Defendants allegedly misrepresented that defendant EvexiPEL
had developed an exclusive, proprietary hormone replacement pellet; that defendant
Terri DeNeui participated in the development of the allegedly proprietary
hormone pellet; that defendant Farmakeio had a federally required 503B
“registration pending,” when there is no such thing and no paperwork for any
such registration had been submitted; that their Pellet “has been shown to
produce better outcomes for patients too” and similar claims; that Farmakeio
was “a leading pharmacy in the U.S.” when it had just been formed and started
operating; etc.
BioTE failed to get a preliminary injunction for want of
irreparable injury.  Some courts have
held that false comparative ads can be presumed to cause injury and even
irreparable injury. Here, the court held that, even assuming false comparisons,
irreparable harm shouldn’t be presumed after eBay and Winter.  Anyway, cases presuming irreparable harm in
the Lanham Act context are mostly trademark cases, and trademark is special
because no proof of injury is required to succed in a trademark case.
[Sigh.] 
BioTE also argued that it lost market share to defendants;
lost market share due to false advertising can result in irreparable
harm, at least in an industry where consumers are brand loyal. But BioTE didn’t
provide evidence that its lost customers couldn’t be redressed with damages; it
provided no “affidavits, declarations, or any other support, that shows
imminent harm that is difficult to quantify.” Proof of lost market share and
lost sales alone didn’t show irreparable harm.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2MF5Oj7

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