Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: 43(B)logNo second bite at federal apple for GlaxoSmithKline
By Rebecca Tushnet
Blue Cross Blue Shield v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 2008 WL 304888 (D. Minn.)
Plaintiffs originally sued in federal district court, asserting state and federal antitrust claims as well as state-law deceptive trade practices and similar fraud claims. The basic allegation is that defendant GSK illegally obtained a monopoly on Paxil and charged supracompetitive prices for it, fraudulently interfering with the entry of generics into the market. The federal complaint was dismissed because plaintiffs, third-party payors, didn?t suffer a direct injury as required by federal antitrust law, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Plaintiffs refiled in state court. GSK moved to dismiss, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by federal patent law, because their alleged basis involved patent misconduct. The state court rejected that argument, and found that plaintiffs? false advertising and deceptive marketing allegations survived a motion to dismiss, rejecting GSK?s argument that the ?learned intermediary? doctrine precluded them.
GSK removed the case and plaintiffs moved to remand. GSK argued that plaintiffs? based on alleged false marketing and advertising of prescription drugs were preempted by federal law. Defenses like preemption don?t create federal question jurisdiction unless there?s complete preemption. But GSK didn?t argue complete preemption of false marketing claims. Instead, GSK argued that plaintiffs? false advertising claims must necessarily fail on a variety of grounds. But (in the absence of complete preemption) federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, so that argument is not properly addressed to the federal district court, and the motion to remand was granted.
Given the unique procedural history of the case, GSK had no objectively reasonable basis for removal, and plaintiffs were awarded fees and costs.
Full post as published by 43(B)log on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).
Apple tries to take a bite out of the Big Apple
New York City has this new initiative called GreeNYC, the goal of which is reduce carbon emissions by 30% in the next 22 years. And they’ve got this nifty little logo you see right over there, with a cute little…
GlaxoSmithKline to Acquire Sirtris Pharmaceuticals; Solvay Tenders Offer for Innogenetics
By Donald Zuhn -- Last Tuesday, GlaxoSmithKline and Sirtris Pharmaceuticals announced that the companies had entered into a definitive agreement under which GlaxoSmithKline would acquire Sirtris Pharmaceuticals for approximately $720 million...
GlaxoSmithKline Escapes Criminal Prosecution
Drugmaker, GlaxoSmithKline, escapes criminal prosecution in Britian, for withholding information about adverse effects of its drug, Seroxat. Seroxat, is marketed in the United States, as Paxil...
Fifth District: Apple Records
Can a trial court dismiss a proceeding sua sponte based on res judicata? This decision shows the answer is yes. The Fifth District not only affirmed the dismissal but explained: Every litigant is entitled to one bite at the apple...
Apple Computer Sues NYC
From the Daily News: ...California-based Apple Inc. is taking on the Big Apple over a federal application by NYC & Company for its own apple logo. But city officials say the design resemblance is only skin deep...
Apple v. Big Apple
If this keeps up, we may eventually need a new name for that fruit whose daily dose keeps the doctor away. As you will recall, last year computer maker Apple Inc. and The Beatles' company Apple Corps Ltd...
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TEA-21 - Plus Law 105-178
GlaxoSmithKline Pays $750 Million Over Defective Drugs
GlaxoSmithKline Pays $750 Million Over Defective Drugs
Apple Faces iPad Class Action
Apple Faces iPad Class Action
AT&T, Apple Face Potential Class Action over iPhone MMS
AT&T, Apple Face Potential Class Action over iPhone MMS
Zantac Patent
GlaxoSmithKline and Cypress Pharmaceutical settle patent infringement dispute.
Apple iPods
Injuries, Burning, and Melting Reported
Exploding iPod Touch
Mother of Injured Boy Sues Apple








