Consumer Law

Another pharma substitution case fails

Another pharma substitution case fails

Sebela Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. TruPharma, LLC, 2021 WL
4316750, No. 1:20-cv-1677-SB (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2021)

When a false advertising case starts this way, you can guess
how it will end: “Market competition is good. Competitors are free to copy
successful products as long as they do not steal, lie, or mislead.” Here, Sebela
didn’t plausibly allege anything false or deceptive in its rival’s sale of a
medical cream with the same active ingredients in the same strength. A pharma
database links the two as equivalent, which allegedly caused substitution of
TruPharma’s cream for Sebela’s cream. But Sebela didn’t point to any TruPharma
statement as false. TruPharma’s cream is not an FDA-approved generic and has
not been tested for bioequivalence, but Sebela never alleged that it claimed
that its creams “are AB-rated, therapeutically equivalent, bioequivalent,
and/or FDA-approved generics to [Sebela’s cream].”

The closest it came to alleging misleadingness was is a
screen shot of a database that lists Sebela’s cream as an “Equivalent Drug” for
TruPharma’s. “But TruPharma’s cream is indeed ‘pharmaceutically equivalent’: as
Sebela admits, it has the ‘exact same strength and active ingredients’ in the
same form.” Though Sebela argued that “equivalent” implied bioequivalence and
FDA approval, “Sebela gives no reason to think that pharmacists are confused,
let alone misled.” [This might be a survey problem: some plaintiffs have done
better with survey evidence.]

Sebela alleged substitution, but “substitution does not
imply deception. As Sebela’s own complaint shows, pharmacists substitute drugs
based on cost,” and TruPharma’s cream was cheaper. Sebela even pled that insurers
and pharmacy-benefit managers often “decide to only cover a cheaper drug that
is pharmaceutically equivalent, even where there has been no showing of
therapeutic equivalence.” Id. And Sebela admitted that “substitution will also
occur even if a Drug Database states that TruPharma’s [cream] is not an A- or
AB-Rated generic” approved by the FDA.

Confusion was possible, but that wasn’t enough under Twiqbal.
“I find it implausible that trained, licensed pharmacists are fooled. Far more
likely, they are just heeding frugal patients, insurers, and pharmacy-benefits
managers.”

Moreover, even if Sebela plausibly alleged misleading
statements, it didn’t plausibly allege that TruPharma (rather than the database
operators) made them.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *