Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

APRESAZIDE COLOR, SIZE & SHAPE CASE: BOLAR SEEKING TO EXPEDITE APPEAL

Executive Summary

APRESAZIDE COLOR, SIZE & SHAPE CASE: BOLAR SEEKING TO EXPEDITE APPEAL of a NJ federal court's permanent injunction prohibiting it from employing the same trade dress used by Ciga-Geigy for the hydralazine hydrochlorothiazide combo. On March 5, Bolar asked the Third Circuit to affirm NJ Federal Judge Sarokin's permanent order so that the generic firm can seek to return the case to the Supreme Court. Bolar's suggestion to the Third Circuit followed the Supreme Court's denial, on the same day, of the firm's petition for certiorari relating to a preliminary injunction issued by Sarokin in the fall of 1982. While the appeal of the preliminary injunction was moving through the Third Circuit to the Supreme Court, Sarokin converted the original order to a permanent injunction. Bolar restarted the appeals process on the permanent injunction, and now wants the Third Circuit to reaffirm its decision in the belief that the Supreme Court will be more likely to accept the case under a permanent injunction. The high court rarely accepts review of preliminary injunction. The case is significant because it is being considered under a New Jersey state law and section 43(a) of the Federal Lanham Act, which addresses unfair competition practices. An earlier "look-alike" case which reached the Supreme Court, the Ives Cyclospasmol suit, was decided under section 33 of the Lanham Act which deals with the narrower issue of trademark infringement. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Inwood Labs was not responsible for "passing off" its products for Ives' drug. The current case could establish whether generic use of brand name trade dress per se is unfair.

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS143249

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel