October 20, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to review a decision immunizing Merck & Co. from claims that it blocked competition by making false submissions to federal regulators for its mumps vaccine.
September 16, 2025
Merck & Co. told the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a bid from physicians looking to revive antitrust claims over submissions the pharmaceutical giant made to federal regulators concerning its mumps vaccine, arguing that the case is "an exceptionally poor vehicle" for review.
July 11, 2025
Physicians asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision immunizing Merck & Co. from antitrust claims over submissions it made to federal regulators over its mumps vaccine, arguing the Third Circuit went far beyond its peers in holding that deceiving the government isn't illegal if the deception worked.
February 11, 2025
The full Third Circuit refused to reconsider a ruling that immunized Merck & Co. from antitrust claims over submissions it made to federal regulators for its mumps vaccine, over the objection of a trio of appellate judges.
January 16, 2025
Merck urged the Third Circuit not to reconsider a ruling that immunized the company from antitrust claims over submissions it made to federal regulators for its mumps vaccine, arguing the appeals court was right to find the submissions were protected.
November 27, 2024
The anti-monopoly think tank Open Markets Institute urged the full Third Circuit to rethink a panel's immunization of Merck & Co. Inc. from antitrust claims over its mumps vaccine, arguing in an amicus brief that the doctrine cementing the right to petition the government doesn't justify the use of courts and administration as a "competitive weapon."
October 07, 2024
A divided Third Circuit panel inoculated Merck from claims that it tried to prevent competition by making inflated declarations to federal regulators about its mumps vaccine, with the majority ruling Monday that because Merck convinced federal regulators it had extended the vaccine's long-term potency, those assertions can't have been an anticompetitive "sham."