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>
免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限，并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容，但无意进行任何更改或扩展，也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限，将受下列条款与条例约束：(i) 条款与条例；(ii) 风险提示；以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意，网站所提供的所有讯息，仅限一般资讯用途。此外，XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成，也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。
所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。
本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容，包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接，皆保持不变，并作为一般市场评论所提供，而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解，XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯，更多详情请点击 这里。
