Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Par Sterile Products, LLC v. Hospira Inc et al
Case Number:
2:13-cv-07460
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
May 12, 2015
Hospira, Par Pharma Settle Epinephrine False Ad Suit
A California federal judge signed off on a deal Tuesday to resolve claims brought by a unit of Par Pharmaceutical Inc. accusing Hospira Inc. of falsely marketing its products as being comparable to Par's FDA-approved version of the allergy treatment epinephrine.
-
October 08, 2014
Calif. Judge Pares Par's False-Ad Suit, Citing Pom
A California federal judge on Tuesday trimmed misleading label claims from Par Sterile Products LLC’s suit against makers of epinephrine not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration but allowed false advertising claims to proceed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's Pom ruling, which found that FDA regulations do not preclude Lanham Act claims.
-
September 22, 2014
Hospira Can't Kill Epinephrine False Ad Suit, Par Says
Par Sterile Products LLC urged a California federal judge Monday to keep alive claims that Hospira Inc. and two makers of non-U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved epinephrine falsely marketed their products as comparable to Par's FDA-approved version of the allergy treatment, saying he needn’t interpret FDA regulations to hear the case.