Merck immune from antitrust claim that it misled FDA about mumps vaccine, court rules
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>Laatste nieuws
Disclaimer: De entiteiten van de XM Group bieden diensten en toegang tot ons online handelsplatform op basis van uitsluitend-uitvoering, waardoor een persoon de beschikbare content op of via de website kan bekijken en/of gebruiken, zonder dat dit is bedoeld voor wijziging of uitbreiding. Dergelijk(e) toegang en gebruik vallen onder: (i) de algemene voorwaarden; (ii) risicowaarschuwingen; en de (iii) volledige disclaimer. Dergelijke content wordt daarom alleen aangeboden als algemene informatie. Wees u er daarnaast vooral van bewust dat de inhoud op ons online handelsplatform geen verzoek of aanbieding omvat om transacties op de financiële markten uit te voeren. Het beleggen op welke financiële markt dan ook vormt een aanzienlijk risico voor uw vermogen.
Alle materialen die op ons online handelsplatform worden gepubliceerd zijn bedoeld voor educatieve/informatieve doeleinden en omvatten geen – en moeten niet worden beschouwd als het bevatten van – financieel, vermogensbelastings- of handelsadvies en aanbevelingen, of een overzicht van onze handelsprijzen, of een aanbod of aanvraag van een transactie in financiële instrumenten of ongevraagde financiële promoties voor u.
Alle content van derden, alsmede content die is voorbereid door XM, zoals opinies, nieuws, onderzoeken, analyses, prijzen en andere informatie of koppelingen naar externe websites op deze website worden aangeboden op een 'zoals-ze-zijn'-basis, als algemene marktcommentaren, en vormen geen beleggingsadvies. Voor zover dat content wordt beschouwd als beleggingsonderzoek, moet u zich ervan bewust zijn en accepteren dat de content niet bedoeld was en niet is voorbereid in overeenstemming met de wettelijke vereisten die zijn opgesteld om de onafhankelijkheid van beleggingsonderzoek te bevorderen en als zodanig onder de geldende wetgeving en richtlijnen moet worden beschouwd als marketingcommunicatie. Zorg ervoor dat u onze Mededeling over niet-onafhankelijk beleggingsonderzoek en risicowaarschuwing in verband met de voorgaande informatie doorneemt en begrijpt; die kunt u hier lezen.
