Hindi nagbibigay ng serbisyo ang XM sa mga residente ng Estados Unidos.

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: Ang mga kabilang sa XM Group ay nagbibigay lang ng serbisyo sa pagpapatupad at pag-access sa aming Online Trading Facility, kung saan pinapahintulutan nito ang pagtingin at/o paggamit sa nilalaman na makikita sa website o sa pamamagitan nito, at walang layuning palitan o palawigin ito, at hindi din ito papalitan o papalawigin. Ang naturang pag-access at paggamit ay palaging alinsunod sa: (i) Mga Tuntunin at Kundisyon; (ii) Mga Babala sa Risk; at (iii) Kabuuang Disclaimer. Kaya naman ang naturang nilalaman ay ituturing na pangkalahatang impormasyon lamang. Mangyaring isaalang-alang na ang mga nilalaman ng aming Online Trading Facility ay hindi paglikom, o alok, para magsagawa ng anumang transaksyon sa mga pinansyal na market. Ang pag-trade sa alinmang pinansyal na market ay nagtataglay ng mataas na lebel ng risk sa iyong kapital.

Lahat ng materyales na nakalathala sa aming Online Trading Facility ay nakalaan para sa layuning edukasyonal/pang-impormasyon lamang at hindi naglalaman – at hindi dapat ituring bilang naglalaman – ng payo at rekomendasyon na pangpinansyal, tungkol sa buwis sa pag-i-invest, o pang-trade, o tala ng aming presyo sa pag-trade, o alok para sa, o paglikom ng, transaksyon sa alinmang pinansyal na instrument o hindi ginustong pinansyal na promosyon.

Sa anumang nilalaman na galing sa ikatlong partido, pati na ang mga nilalaman na inihanda ng XM, ang mga naturang opinyon, balita, pananaliksik, pag-analisa, presyo, ibang impormasyon o link sa ibang mga site na makikita sa website na ito ay ibibigay tulad ng nandoon, bilang pangkalahatang komentaryo sa market at hindi ito nagtataglay ng payo sa pag-i-invest. Kung ang alinmang nilalaman nito ay itinuring bilang pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, kailangan mong isaalang-alang at tanggapin na hindi ito inilaan at inihanda alinsunod sa mga legal na pangangailangan na idinisenyo para maisulong ang pagsasarili ng pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, at dahil dito ituturing ito na komunikasyon sa marketing sa ilalim ng mga kaugnay na batas at regulasyon. Mangyaring siguruhin na nabasa at naintindihan mo ang aming Notipikasyon sa Hindi Independyenteng Pananaliksik sa Pag-i-invest at Babala sa Risk na may kinalaman sa impormasyong nakalagay sa itaas, na maa-access dito.

Babala sa Risk: Maaaring malugi ang iyong kapital. Maaaring hindi nababagay sa lahat ang mga produktong naka-leverage. Mangyaring isaalang-alang ang aming Pahayag sa Risk.