XM non fornisce servizi ai residenti degli Stati Uniti d'America.

Merck immune from antitrust claim that it misled FDA about mumps vaccine, court rules



<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>Merck immune from antitrust claim that it misled FDA about mumps vaccine, court rules</title></head><body>

By Brendan Pierson

Oct 7 (Reuters) -Merck MRK.N is immune from an antitrust lawsuit accusing it of misleading regulators about the effectiveness of its mumps vaccine in order to ward off competition, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.

A 2-1 panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Merck is protected by a legal doctrine known as Noerr-Pennington immunity, which states that parties cannot face antitrust claims for petitioning the government even if they are advocating for government action that would reduce competition.

Merck and a lawyer for the plaintiffs — a group of doctors and medical practices claiming they overpaid for the vaccine — did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

New Jersey-based Merck made the only mumps vaccine in the U.S. from 1967 until 2022. It is sold as part of a combined vaccine against mumps, measles and rubella, known as MMR-II, and another product called ProQuad that additionally protects against varicella, also known as chickenpox.

In the late 1990s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised concerns that the mumps vaccine lost potency toward the end of its 24-month shelf life, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in 2012 in Philadelphia federal court.

Merck responded by boosting the initial potency of the vaccine in the hope of addressing the problem and submitted a supplemental application to the FDA to continue selling the vaccine without revising its efficacy claims.

However, the plaintiffs said, Merck relied on a flawed clinical trial to show that the measure worked and concealed the problems with the trial from the FDA, leading the agency to approve the supplemental application.

As a result of that deception, competitor GSK GSK.L, which is not part of the lawsuit, decided not to pursue its own mumps vaccine because it believed it would not be able to show that it was as effective as Merck's, the plaintiffs allege. GSK only went ahead with its vaccine after learning about the problems with Merck's trial.

The plaintiffs said that Merck deliberately misled the FDA in order to prevent competition from GSK, violating the federal Sherman Act and state consumer protection laws.

U.S. District Judge Chad Kenney in Philadelphia last year granted Merck summary judgment on the state law claims but let the Sherman Act claim go forward, and Merck appealed.

But the majority of the 3rd Circuit panel, reversing Kenney's ruling, found in Monday's non-precedential opinion that Noerr-Pennington immunity held even if Merck's actions were "unethical."

"The record contains troubling evidence that Merck sought to extend its apparent monopoly by misrepresenting facts about its mumps vaccines on the FDA-approved drug labeling," Circuit Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves wrote for the panel. "But those allegedly false claims were the result of Merck's genuine and successful petitioning of the FDA."

That meant that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in a pair of decisions in the 1960s, clearly applied, she wrote.

Montgomery-Reeves was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. She was joined by Circuit Judge Peter Phipps, who was appointed by his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump.

Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz dissented, writing that the court should recognize an exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity when a company makes deliberate misrepresentations to the government. She was appointed by former President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

The case is In re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-3089.

For plaintiffs: Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler

For Merck: Jessica Ellsworth of Hogan Lovells


Read more:

Judge rules antitrust claim over mumps vaccine against Merck untimely

Merck accused of stonewalling in mumps vaccine antitrust lawsuit


(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York)

</body></html>

Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.

Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.

Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.

Avvertenza sul rischio: Il tuo capitale è a rischio. I prodotti con leva finanziaria possono non essere adatti a tutti. Ti chiediamo di consultare attentamente la nostra Informativa sul rischio.