This lawsuit emerged from Law.com Radar, a source of quick legal news and process updates tailored to your practice. Law.com Radar publishes daily updates on newly filed federal cases like this one. Click here to get started and be the first to know about new costumes in your region, industry or industry. Read the complaint here: This statement contains forward-looking information regarding lawsuits brought against Pfizer in various federal and state courts regarding Zantac, including claims for compensation that involve significant risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risk and effects of an adverse decision or settlement and the adequacy of reservations in connection with legal proceedings; uncertainties associated with research and development; uncertainties and variables inherent in the Company`s business and financial performance, including, but not limited to, competitive developments and general economic, political, commercial, industrial, regulatory and market conditions; exchange rates and future interest rates; changes in laws, regulations, tariffs and tax and other policies; uncertainties about the impact of COVID-19; and competitive developments. Pfizer is the world`s largest pharmaceutical manufacturer and, like many other manufacturers, has come under scrutiny for the legality of its marketing practices. In fact, in the early 2000s, the U.S. government began to crack down increasingly on illegal off-label advertising when a pharmaceutical company itself advertises a drug for unapproved uses, doses, or for unapproved populations. In the early 2000s, Pfizer was forced to settle some off-label marketing research, but always insisted that it was the marketing practices of the companies Pfizer had acquired that led to the settlements. Pfizer and its executives have publicly insisted that the company itself does not engage in off-label advertising. However, unbeknownst to investors, Pfizer illegally advertised several of its own drugs to boost sales. On Tuesday night, the group of doctors and scientists who sued last year for public access to the FDA`s Pfizer license documents said in a court filing that the company`s bid to go to trial was outdated because the plaintiffs did not challenge the redactions of the requested records.
NEW YORK, N.Y., August 11, 2022 – Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) – As noted in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since February 2020, a number of lawsuits have been filed against numerous defendants, including Pfizer, in which Zantac is involved. Pfizer only sold Zantac between 1998 and 2006, and the withdrawal of Zantac products from the market in 2019 and 2020 did not affect Pfizer`s products. Pfizer has important defenses for this litigation and there are important legal and factual issues that have not yet been resolved by the courts. Pfizer also has significant claims against others that have been acknowledged by several manufacturers in their disclosures. Therefore, at this stage, we believe that the outcome of the litigation is unlikely to be material to Pfizer. Moderna Inc. sued Pfizer Inc.
and BioNTech SE, claiming their Covid-19 vaccine technology infringed their patents, a move that paves the way for a massive legal dispute between the vaccine titans. Pfizer faced a consumer class action lawsuit Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over the generic version of the anti-smoking drug Chantix. The lawsuit, filed by Freiwald Law and Goldenberg Law, alleges that Pfizer`s drug, commonly known as varenicline, contains carcinogens and was not properly approved for its safety and efficacy. No defence lawyer has yet appeared for the accused. The case is 2:22-cv-03647, Baptiste v. Pfizer, Inc. The company is not seeking monetary damages for sales to 92 low- and middle-income countries under GAVI`s COVAX Advance Market Commitment (GAC 92) To contact reporters about this story: Angelica Peebles in Boston, alavito@bloomberg.net; Robert Langreth in New York at rlangreth@bloomberg.net In its filing, Pfizer said the company supports public disclosure of FDA records “to promote transparency and public confidence in the vaccine.” CAMBRIDGE, MA / ACCESSWIRE / Aug. 26, 2022 / Moderna, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapies and vaccines, today filed patent infringement lawsuits against Pfizer and BioNTech in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the District Court in Düsseldorf, Germany.
Pfizer, which is investing in increasing production of its lipid nanoparticles and has signed contracts with partners to bolster the offering, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. For applicant: Aaron Siri of Siri & Glimstad; and John Howie of Howie Law Pfizer and BioNTech made “exactly the same chemical modification to their mRNA that Moderna scientists developed years earlier, that the company patented and used in Spikevax,” the lawsuit said. In addition, “the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine encodes for exactly the same type of coronavirus protein (i.e., full-length spike protein), which is the design of the coronavirus vaccine developed by Moderna based on its previous work on coronaviruses, which the company patents and uses in Spikevex. Moderna said it was not asking the courts to remove the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccine from the market or block future sales. The company is seeking damages for the period beginning March 8 of this year, saying it will not seek damages for Pfizer sales in 92 low- and middle-income countries. (Updates with Pfizer-BioNTech commentary in the fourth paragraph, counsel`s notes in 11-13.) None of the patent rights that Moderna seeks to enforce relate to intellectual property created during Moderna`s collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to combat COVID-19. This collaboration only began after the patented technologies at issue here were proven in clinical trials in 2015 and 2016. mRNA vaccines have played a crucial role in the fight against the pandemic, particularly in the United States. Pfizer reported nearly $37 billion in revenue from Comirnaty last year, while Moderna generated about $18 billion in revenue from Spikevax. U.S. government agencies control the disclosure of information under federal records laws, but companies can challenge the disclosure of certain details and even sue to block disclosure of certain details.
“We are filing these lawsuits to protect the innovative mRNA technology platform we developed in the decade leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic and invested billions of dollars in its development and patent,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. The settlement represents a significant recovery for the group by the lead plaintiff Stichting Philips Pensioenfonds of Eindhoven, the Netherlands, and the representative of the group, Mary K. Jones of Fayetteville, Arkansas. “We are pleased that Pfizer has agreed to settle the investors` $400 million claims on the eve of the trial, subject to court approval. We thank our lawyers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, for their expert advice in this matter,” said Jasper Kemme, Managing Director of Stichting Philips Pensioenfonds. The company`s filing said it was unaware of the lawsuit until it read media reports on the matter. The FDA had previously criticized its plan to publish 500 pages a month in response to lawsuit filed by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a production schedule that would take more than 50 years. Siri & Glimstad, the New York-based boutique company that filed the lawsuit, resisted mandatory vaccination efforts. Moderna believes that Pfizer and BioNTech`s Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine infringes patents filed by Moderna between 2010 and 2016 that cover Moderna`s core mRNA technology.
This revolutionary technology was instrumental in the development of the advanced COVID-19 Spikevax® mRNA vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech copied this technology without Moderna`s permission to manufacture Comirnaty®. Moderna`s initial promise not to enforce its patent during the pandemic gives Pfizer and BioNTech a strong defense because it hasn`t officially ended, said Jorge Contreras, a law professor at the University of Utah and an expert on patent promises. Public promises are considered binding commitments under the law, he said, and tweaking the promise made by Moderna earlier this year does not negate the original promise, he said. The FDA declined to comment Wednesday, and Pfizer said in a statement that its intervention “will help expedite the release of documents.” At the time, senior defense attorney Michael J. Dowd joined the team, Robbins Geller`s investigation, led by partners Henry Rosen, Willow E. Radcliffe and Ryan Llorens, had lasted more than two years and included reviewing more than 25 million pages of documents and testifying from 45 factual witnesses who were investigating marketing practices. Pfizer`s internal controls, accounting procedures and public disclosures. “The excellent outcome in this case would not have been achieved without the ongoing investigation of our litigation team,” said Mr. Dowd. “The addition of attorney Jason A. Forge really helped move the case forward in response to the defendants` impressive defenses.
This case is a testament to our firm`s resources, experience and tenacity in making it a leader in securities fraud litigation.