![]() ![]() In a third Vasostrict action, brought in July 2016, Fresenius Kabi alleges that Par pushed out manufacturers of vasopressin in violation of antitrust laws.26, 2018, or the occurrence of one of the triggering events in the hopes of resolving the case. This case is stayed until the earlier of Sept. Par is also working to protect Vasostrict in the District of Columbia, where it initiated a lawsuit in October 2017 alleging that the Food and Drug Administration had violated Congress’ statutory regime for “bulk drug compounding” in allowing a rival to manufacture vasopressin.The judge could rule on motions to dismiss Par’s complaint at any time. On April 27, the court set a required bond of $18.4 million for Par, though QuVa had asked that Par post a $102 million bond. Shares of Endo rose nearly 16% in the days after the injunction was announced. On March 1, Judge Brian Martinotti granted a preliminary injunction blocking QuVa’s marketing and release of its competing vasopressin product until the conclusion of the trial.Par claims that its former employees founded QuVa and “began a poaching campaign to hire away key employees with intimate knowledge of Par’s trade secrets” regarding Vasostrict, a blood pressure drug manufactured under the generic name vasopressin. In August 2017, Par filed a complaint against QuVa in the District of New Jersey alleging “a blatant case of trade secrets theft” in order to create an alternative to Par’s $400 million Vasostrict heart drug.Endo Pharmaceuticals subsidiary Par Pharmaceuticals is embroiled in litigation on multiple fronts in its attempts to protect its $400 million Vasostrict heart drug, which represents approximately 12% of Endo’s consolidated revenue.Par Motion to Dismiss QuVa’s Unfair Competition Counterclaim ![]() Par Opposition to QuVa Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction QuVa Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |