-
Recent Posts
- Santa Clara IP Conference: Where Do We Go From Here?
- Santa Clara IP conference: How It’s Going: What Went Wrong?
- Santa Clara School of Law: Intellectual Property Conference: How It Started, How It’s Going: What Went Right?
- False endorsement claim can proceed against gov’t issued license plates and gov’t facility named for Roberto Clemente
- Non-TM owner can use 43(a) to challenge confusing use
Recent Comments
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Tag Archives: fda
FDCA doesn’t preempt false advertising suit based on claims about protein source
Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp., — F.3d —-, 2018 WL 4938190, No. 16-15374 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018) Durnford brought the usual California consumer claims against MusclePharm for making false or misleading statements about the protein in one of its supplements. … Continue reading
Court presumes failure to comply w/FDA labeling rules to be misleading
Campbell v. Freshbev LLC, 322 F.Supp.3d 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) Campbell bought several bottles of Freshbev juices at Whole Foods, allegedly relying on misrepresentations (1) that the juices were unpasteurized; (2) that the juices were cold-pressed; (3) that the juices were … Continue reading
Lanham Act covers ads that drug is FDA-approved/has ANDA
Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2018 WL 3677923, No. 17-4910 (D. Minn. Aug. 2, 2018) Arbor sells prescription erythromycin ethylsuccinate for oral suspension, allegedly the only FDA-approved products of their kind on the market. ANI announced the launch … Continue reading
make your own sexual reference: 9th Circuit partially reinstates male enhancement lawsuit
Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc., No. 16-56301, No. 16-56710, — Fed.Appx. —-, 2018 WL 1633011 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) Sandoval brought a putative class action claim based on PharmaCare’s statements about its “male enhancement” product IntenseX. The court of … Continue reading
Supplement maker can’t enjoin database changes, but avoids anti-SLAPP dismissal
Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 2017 WL 6539909, No. 17-cv-04810 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017) This is an interesting case about the FDA/Lanham Act interaction. Exeltis sells prenatal vitamins that contain 1 mg of folic acid. They aren’t … Continue reading
Another court declines to apply GNC where plaintiff alleges only negative studies
Yeldo v. MusclePharm Corp., 2017 WL 5499588, Case No. 17-11011 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2017) Yeldo brought a putative class action alleging that MusclePharm used misleading marketing practices to promote its glutamine dietary supplement, whose label and online ads indicate … Continue reading
When the specifics are misleading: medical test stats draw false advertising claim
Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc., 2017 WL 4654644, No. 16-cv-3059 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2017) Quidel is a “diagnostic healthcare manufacturer” that “developed, promotes and sells the Thyretain TSI Reporter BioAssay,” which is “intended for the qualitative … Continue reading
Reading list: consequences of 1A protections for off-label promotion
Patricia J. Zettler, The Indirect Consequences of Expanded Off-Label Promotion, Ohio State Law Journal, Forthcoming The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) policies have been a battleground for litigation about First Amendment protections for commercial speech. In the last five … Continue reading
“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. … Continue reading