DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Litigation Post Daimler & Bristol-Myers Squibb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Litigation Post Daimler & Bristol-Myers Squibb Litigation Post Daimler & Bristol-Myers Squibb – Open Jurisdictional Issues By: Douglas J. Chumbley and Joshua E. Roberts Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. 100 Southeast Second Street Suite 4200 Miami, Florida 33131 Susanna M. Moldoveanu and Ben J. Scott Butler Snow LLP 6075 Poplar Avenue Suite 500 Memphis, Tennessee 38119 1 113386980.2 I. Background and the Supreme Court’s General Jurisdiction Decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman Since International Shoe was decided in 1945, the general view among courts was that a corporation was subject to general personal jurisdiction wherever it continuously did business. See, e.g., Alan M. Trammell, A Tale of Two Jurisdictions, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 501, 511 (2015). Accordingly, personal jurisdiction was simply not a hotly contested issue in many cases. This history is laid out in more detail in the attached IADC Defense Counsel Journal article, Moldoveanu & Scott, Personal Jurisdiction Post-Daimler-As Plaintiffs Test Exceptions to Daimler's Narrow Path, All Eyes on Appellate Courts, 84 Def. Couns. J. 1 (2017), Appendix A. The tide started to turn, however, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), where the Court indicated that personal jurisdiction was more restrictive than many had thought. And in 2014, the Supreme Court resolved the question definitely with Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 776 (2014), affirming that the old “continuously and systematically doing business” test was no longer the law. In Daimler, the Supreme Court made clear that a defendant is “at home”—and thus is subject to general personal jurisdiction—only in (1) the state of its principal place of business, or (2) its state of incorporation, except in the “exceptional case.” Despite the clear language of Daimler, pockets of lower courts still found personal jurisdiction in cases where unrelated plaintiffs from across the country joined together to file suit in their chosen forum—primarily, California, Illinois, and Missouri. Even though the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims had no connection to the forum, they would join one or more in-state plaintiffs to “anchor” their suits in the desired forum. See Appendix A. II. 2017 Supreme Court decisions in BNSF and Bristol-Myers Squibb In 2017, the Supreme Court issued two decisions again addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction, this time directly addressing the “jurisdiction by joinder’ theory still lingering post- Daimler. The first decision, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was not so much a sea change in the law, but it is important because it reaffirmed the test for general jurisdiction stated three years earlier in Daimler AG v. Bauman. In BNSF, the plaintiffs—one a North Dakota resident and the other an estate administrator appointed in South Dakota—had filed suit against BNSF under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) in Montana, even though the plaintiffs did not live in Montana, did not work in Montana, and did not allege any injuries related to Montana. BNSF is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas. In the opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court found there was no personal jurisdiction over the claims. With BNSF, the Supreme Court made clear that Daimler’s holding is not limited to its facts. Rather, Daimler “applies to all state-court assertions of general jurisdiction 2 113386980.2 over nonresident defendants; the constraint does not vary with the type of claim asserted or business enterprise sued.” In short, the decision shows that Daimler means what Daimler says: that a corporation is only subject to general personal jurisdiction in the state of its incorporation or its principal place of business, except in the exceptional case. The second decision, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of Calif., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), finally addressed the issue of specific jurisdiction and “jurisdiction by joinder.” In this 8- 1 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s finding of specific personal jurisdiction over non-California residents’ claims in that state. In Bristol-Myers Squibb, more than 600 plaintiffs from around the country joined together to file suit in California, all alleging injuries related to the drug Plavix, sold by defendant Bristol- Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York. Plaintiffs also sued McKesson Corporation, a California distributor of Plavix. The California Supreme Court ruled that there was no general personal jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers Squibb under Daimler, but found that there was specific jurisdiction based on the company’s activities in the state. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that “settled principles regarding specific jurisdiction control this case.” The Court rejected California’s “sliding scale” test for specific jurisdiction, instead reaffirming the traditional test: “In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” The Court also clearly established that personal jurisdiction must be established by each plaintiff as to each defendant. Thus, the fact that the non-California plaintiffs had joined with California plaintiffs to file suit did not extend personal jurisdiction: Each plaintiff had to establish jurisdiction independently. Nor did the presence of McKesson Corporation create jurisdiction, as the requirements of personal jurisdiction must be met as to each defendant. III. The remaining battlegrounds Despite the early promise of Daimler and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the case law has shown that the battle is not yet over, as plaintiffs try different avenues to evade those decisions. We will examine three remaining battlegrounds for the personal jurisdiction issue: (1) specific jurisdiction, (2) consent jurisdiction, and (3) class actions. A. Specific Jurisdiction Though Bristol-Myers Squibb undoubtedly rejected the “sliding scale” approach to personal jurisdiction, it declined to articulate a specific test for personal jurisdiction. Thus, the circuits remain split over whether to apply a “but-for” causation test (Ninth Circuit) or a “proximate cause” standard (First and Sixth Circuits), while still other circuits decline to adopt a 3 113386980.2 specific test, though acknowledging that “but-for” causation is not enough (e.g., Seventh and Third Circuits). Perhaps because of this ambiguity, some courts have found specific personal jurisdiction post-Bristol Myers Squibb in cases with the most tenuous connections to the forum. Pre-Bristol Myers Squibb, the Illinois Court of Appeals had found specific jurisdiction based on a defendant manufacturer’s clinical trial activity in the state in M.M. ex rel. Meyers v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 61 N.E.3d 1026, 1031 (Ill. Ct. App. 2016). In that case, only 17 of the 361 Paxil trials were conducted in Illinois (involving 100 of the 4272 total clinical trial patients). The court found that plaintiffs had “made a prima facie showing that their claims directly arose from or related to ... acts of omission during the clinical trials and the resulting inadequate warning labels,” irrespective of the fact that only a small fraction of the studies occurred in Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court denied review of this decision and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Soon after Bristol Myers Squibb, the M.M. reasoning was followed in two nearly identical decisions in the Northern District of California. Just as in M.M., only a small fraction of the clinical trial activity was performed in California, but the court found that sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction under the Ninth Circuit’s “but-for” test. Dubose v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2017 WL 2775034 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) Cortina v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. , 2017 WL 2793808 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) Similarly, in California state court, a court found personal jurisdiction where the defendants had entered into consulting contracts with two California surgeons regarding the design of the hip implant device. See DellaCamera et ux. v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. et al., No. CJC-10-004649, Proceeding No. 4649 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty. Nov. 1, 2017). Personal jurisdiction has also been a key issue in the talcum powder products liability litigation, which had resulted in some of the largest verdicts of 2016 and 2017. Pre-Bristol-Myers Squibb, state and federal courts in Missouri had routinely rejected defendants’ personal jurisdiction arguments, finding jurisdiction by joinder. After Bristol-Myers Squibb, federal courts in Missouri have dismissed hundreds of plaintiffs (in the talc litigation and other litigation) on personal jurisdiction grounds. See, e.g., Gallardo v. Johnson & Johnson, 2017 WL 3128911 (E.D. Mo. July 24, 2017). In October of 2017, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed a $72 million verdict in a talcum powder case on personal jurisdiction grounds. See Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2017 WL 4629383 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2017). However, the next month, a trial court denied defendants post-trial relief in a talcum powder case with similar facts, finding the claims had sufficient connection to the state for personal jurisdiction purposes because the products had been manufactured, at least in part, in Missouri. Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1422-CC- 09326-02 (Mo. Ct. Ct. 22nd Judicial Cir. Nov. 29, 2017). Thus, while Bristol Myers Squibb was a victory for defendants, so long as plaintiffs can find some connection to the forum—however tenuous—personal jurisdiction may still be a contested issue depending on the jurisdiction. 4 113386980.2 B. Consent Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction by Registration By limiting general jurisdiction over corporate defendants to the two forums in which they are at home ((a) the state in which corporation is incorporated; and (b) the state in which it maintains its principle place of business), the Supreme Court has severely curtailed the number of jurisdictions wherein corporations may be sued.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Print Layout 1
    TECHNICAL PROGRAM Monday, March 19 5:00 – 8:00 pm Welcome Reception Tuesday, March 20 8:00 – 10:00 Session 1: Setting the Conference Context and Drivers Chair: Geoff Slaff (Amgen) Roger Perlmutter (Amgen) Conquering the Innovation Deficit in Drug Discovery Helen Winkle (CDER, FDA) Regulatory Modernization 10:00 – 10:30 Break Vendor and poster review 10:30 – 12:30 Session 2: Rapid Cell Line Development and Improved Expression System Development Chairs: Timothy Charlebois (Wyeth) and John Joly (Genentech) Amy Shen (Genentech) Stable Antibody Production Cell-Line Development with an Improved Selection Process and Accelerated Timeline Mark Leonard (Wyeth) High-Performing Cell-Line Development within a Rapid and Integrated Platform Process Control Pranhitha Reddy (Amgen) Applying Quality-by-Design to Cell Line Development Lin Zhang (Pfizer) Development of a Fully-Integrated Automated System for High-Throughput Screening and Selection of Single Cells Expressing Monoclonal Antibodies 12:30 – 2:00 Lunch Vendor and poster review 2:00 – 4:30 Session 3: High-Throughput Bulk Process Development Chairs: Brian Kelley (Wyeth) and Jorg Thommes (Biogen Idec) Colette Ranucci (Merck) Development of a Multi-Well Plate System for High-Throughput Process Development Min Zhang (SAFC Biosciences) CHO Media Library – an Efficient Platform for Rapid Development and Optimization of Cell Culture Media Supporting High Production of Pharmaceutical Proteins in Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells Nigel Titchener-Hooker The Use of Ultra-Scale-Down Approaches to Enable Rapid Investigation
    [Show full text]
  • Faculty Disclosure
    Faculty Disclosure In accordance with the ACCME Standards for Commercial Support, course directors, planning committees, faculty and all others in control of the educational content of the CME activity must disclose all relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest that they or their spouse/partner may have had within the past 12 months. If an individual refuses to disclose relevant financial relationships, they will be disqualified from being a part of the planning and implementation of this CME activity. Owners and/or employees of a commercial interest with business lines or products relating to the content of the CME activity will not be permitted to participate in the planning or execution of any accredited activity. Nature of Relevant Financial Relationship Last Name Commercial Interest What Was Received For What Role AbbVie, Allergan/ Tobira Therapeutics Inc, Gilead Research Grant Research Balart Sciences Inc, Pfizer, Salix Pharmaceuticals AbbVie, Merck Honorarium Advisory Board Bau None N/A N/A Benz None N/A N/A AbbVie, Arbutus Biopharma, Dieterich Gilead Sciences, Inc., Bristol- Research Grant Consultant Myers Squibb, Merck Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences Honorarium Speaking, Consultant Inc. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Speaking, Advisory Sciences, Inc, Salix Honorarium Frenette Board Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Merck Intercept Pharmaceuticals Honorarium Advisor Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc Honorarium Consulting Principle Investigator, Research Grant, Han Gilead Sciences,
    [Show full text]
  • Ipo Virtual Annual Meeting Sept
    PATENTS | TRADEMARKS | COPYRIGHTS TRADE SECRETS | INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS IPO VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING SEPT. 21-24, 2020 IPO.ORG/AM2020 KEYNOTE SPEAKERS 30+ EDUCATION POPPY CRUM SESSIONS PhD, Chief Scientist, Dolby Laboratories ANTÓNIO CAMPINOS President, European Patent Office IP EXPO #IPOAM20 ANDREI IANCU Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director United States Patent and Trademark Office KASUTANI NETWORKING TOSHIHIDE Commissioner, Japan Patent Office CONNECT ENGAGE LEARN IPO VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING | SEPT. 21-24, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL MEETING STANDING IP COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETINGS 5 PROGRAM AT-A-GLANCE 6 GENERAL SESSIONS 8 WORKSHOPS 11 PATENT SESSIONS 12 TRADEMARK/COPYRIGHT SESSIONS 17 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS SESSIONS 20 OPERATIONS SESSIONS 21 SPONSORS 22 VIRTUAL IP EXPO 23 NETWORKING 24 REGISTRATION AND MEETING POLICIES 27 REGISTRATION FORM 28 IPO VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING | SEPT. 21-24, 2020 ANNUAL MEETING We are looking forward to bringing our members together in a new and innovative way this year for the 2020 Virtual Annual PROGRAM COMMITTEE Meeting on a secure and engaging virtual platform. The IPO Annual Meeting offers a mix of educational programs LEADERSHIP: featuring leaders in the IP industry, committee meetings, networking opportunities, exhibits, and more. This must-attend CHAIR: event brings together IP professionals from around the world Steve Caltrider, Eli Lilly and Co. to discuss strategies, trends, and best practices. More than VICE CHAIR FOR PATENTS: 30 education sessions will be offered on patents, trademarks, Scott Barker, Micron Technology, Inc. copyrights, industrial designs, and – new this year – operations. In addition to the sessions planned by IPO’s Program VICE CHAIR FOR TRADEMARKS: Committee, several sessions are being organized by IPO’s Colette Durst, 3M Innovative Properties Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol Myers
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ______________________ 2013-1306 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 10-CV-0805, Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke. ______________________ Decided: June 12, 2014 ______________________ WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for plaintiff- appellant. With him on the brief were LAUREN B. FLETCHER and ANDREW J. DANFORD; AMY K. WIGMORE and THOMAS G. SAUNDERS, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief were PAUL BERGHOFF, ALISON J. BALDWIN, and JOSHUA R. RICH, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, Illinois. GEORGE C. LOMBARDI, Winston & Strawn LLP, of Chi- cago, Illinois, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were LYNN MACDONALD ULRICH, IVAN M. 2 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. POULLAOS, JULIA MANO JOHNSON, and WILLIAM P. FERRANTI. ______________________ ∗ Before PROST, Chief Judge, PLAGER and CHEN, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. This patent infringement case concerns a drug for the treatment of hepatitis B. After a four-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244 (’244 patent) invalid as obvious. We affirm the district court’s invalidi- ty judgment for the reasons that follow. I. Appellant Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) owns the ’244 patent. Claim 8 of the ’244 patent is directed to a nucleoside analog composed of two regions: a carbocyclic ring and a guanine base.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Presentation March 19, 2019
    Transaction Update INVESTOR PRESENTATION MARCH 19, 2019 1 Important Information For Investors And Stockholders This communication does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or a solicitation of any vote or approval. It does not constitute a prospectus or prospectus equivalent document. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. In connection with the proposed transaction between Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“Bristol-Myers Squibb”) and Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”), on February 1, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) a registration statement on Form S-4, as amended on February 1, 2019 and February 20, 2019, containing a joint proxy statement of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene that also constitutes a prospectus of Bristol- Myers Squibb. The registration statement was declared effective by the SEC on February 22, 2019, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene commenced mailing the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus to stockholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene on or about February 22, 2019. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND CELGENE ARE URGED TO READ THE DEFINITIVE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED OR THAT WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN OR WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the registration statement and the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus and other documents filed with the SEC by Bristol-Myers Squibb or Celgene through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Listing of Authorized Generics As of July 1, 2021
    FDA Listing of Authorized Generics as of July 1, 2021 Note: This list of authorized generic drugs (AGs) was created from a manual review of FDA’s database of annual reports submitted to the FDA since January 1, 1999 by sponsors of new drug applications (NDAs). Because the annual reports seldom indicate the date an AG initially entered the market, the column headed “Date Authorized Generic Entered Market” reflects the period covered by the annual report in which the AG was first reported. Subsequent marketing dates by the same firm or other firms are not included in this listing. As noted, in many cases FDA does not have information on whether the AG is still marketed and, if not still marketed, the date marketing ceased. Although attempts have been made to ensure that this list is as accurate as possible, given the volume of d ata reviewed and the possibility of database limitations or errors, users of this list are cautioned to independently verify the information on the list. We welcome comments on and suggested changes (e.g., additions and deletions) to the list, but the list may include only information that is included in an annual report. Please send suggested changes to the list, along with any supporting documentation to: [email protected] A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V X Y Z NDA Applicant Date Authorized Generic Proprietary Name Dosage Form Strength Name Entered the Market 1 ACANYA Gel 1.2% / 2.5% Bausch Health 07/2018 Americas, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance Independent Medical Education/Global Medical Grants Request for Educational Support (RFE)
    Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance Independent Medical Education/Global Medical Grants Request for Educational Support (RFE) Date September 4, 2019 RFE Requestor Information Name: Sylvia Nashed, PharmD, RPh Title: IME Specialist Phone: 609-302-3320 E-mail: [email protected] RFE Code RFE-19-CV-104 Therapeutic Area Cardiovascular Area of Interest Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Cancer It is our intent to support educational initiatives that focus on educating practitioners on optimal management of patients with VTE who also have cancer (treatment and reduction in risk of recurrence following initial treatment). This grant will be awarded for creation of VTE in Cancer learnings and tools to be used as part of a comprehensive initiative to address the educational gaps among HCPs in providing care to VTE patients with cancer. The successful proposal will have: Clear and concise statement of the goal, learning objectives, and expected outcomes of the educational initiative Learning plan that incorporates innovative techniques designed to engage learners, promotes application of education into practice, and incorporates the patient voice into educational resources Tools that provide HCP learners the opportunity to facilitate change to improve patient outcomes Measurement of outcomes, inclusive of learner progression throughout the activity, extent to which the activity closed the identified practice gaps, and patient impact Educational Design Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance is interested in supporting a comprehensive educational initiative that is innovative, engaging, interactive, and that leverages current scientific evidence to improve HCP knowledge, skills, competence, and ultimately patient care. The activity(ies) should measure improvement of learners’ knowledge, confidence, competence, and performance and should achieve at least a Moore’s Level 4 impact.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ABCDEFG First Name Last Name
    ABC D E F G Consultant, Speakers Bureau Stock or Other Financial 1 First Name Last Name Institution Grant/Research Support or Advisory Board Member Options University of Texas Southwestern Medical 2 Kenneth Altshuler MD Center Dallas Janssen Abbott, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Bristol‐ AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Myers Squibb. Eli Lilly, 3 Lori Altshuler MD UCLA Abbott GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth GlaxoSmithKline Western Psychiatric Institute Shire, Schering‐Plough, Jazz, 4 Boris Birmaher MD Pittsburg, PA Forest Solvay Abbott, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Elan, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly Research, Parke‐Davis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Lilly Research, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli University of Texas Health Robert Wood Johnson and Sanofi‐Synthelabo, UCB Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, 5 Charles Bowden MD Science Center San Antonio Smith Kline Beecham Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Janssen AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Organon, Pfizer, Roche, 6 Robert Buchanan MD University of Maryland Janssen, Ortho‐McNeil Solvay, Wyeth Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol‐ Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol‐ Abbott, AZ, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Solvay, Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Janssen, Pfizer, Alamo, 7 Peter Buckley MD Medical College of Georgia Novartis Merck, Pfizer, Alamo, Novartis AstraZeneca Abbott, AstraZeneca, Merck, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol‐ GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Myers Squibb/Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Lilly, Pfizer, Ciba‐Geigy, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Robert Wood
    [Show full text]
  • Op0227 Efficacy of Deucravacitinib, an Oral, Selective Tyrosine Kinase 2 Inhibitor, in Musculoskeletal Manifestations of Active Psoriatic Arthritis
    Ann Rheum Dis: first published as 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.2653 on 19 May 2021. Downloaded from Scientific Abstracts 137 Disclosure of Interests: Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino Speakers bureau: Sanofi, deucravacitinib was efficacious and well tolerated versus placebo (PBO) in Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, AbbVie, UCB pharma and Eli Lilly, Consultant patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). of: Sanofi, Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, AbbVie, UCB pharma and Eli Lilly, Objectives: This analysis further evaluated improvements in musculoskeletal Philip G Conaghan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gal- disease manifestations in patients in the Phase 2 PsA trial. apagos, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Methods: The ongoing Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059) enrolled patients who had Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: a PsA diagnosis for ≥6 months, met CASPAR criteria, had active disease (≥3 ten- Novartis and BMS, Employee of: Novartis, Maarten Boers Consultant of: BMS, der joints, ≥3 swollen joints, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥3 mg/L), and had at least 1 Novartis, Pfizer, and GSK, Esperanza Naredo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, active skin lesion. Patients either failed or were intolerant to at least 1 nonsteroi- BMS, Pfizer, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen and Celgene, Consultant of: Abb- dal anti-inflammatory drug, corticosteroid, conventional synthetic disease-mod- Vie, Novartis and BMS, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Philippe Carron ifying antirheumatic drug, and/or 1 TNF inhibitor (TNFi; ≤30%). Patients were Speakers bureau: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead randomized 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg QD or 12 mg QD or PBO, and stratified and Celgene, Consultant of: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, by TNFi status (experienced vs naive) and body weight (<90 vs ≥90 kg).
    [Show full text]
  • Johnson & Johnson Qui Tam Relators Complaint
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ZOUl NOV - I A II: lb' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rei. ) BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF ILLINOIS ex ) rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF ) CALIFORNIA ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, ) STATE OF DELAWARE ex rei. BERi\fARD ) LISITZA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ex rei. ) BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF FLORIDA ex ) No.07-10288-RGS rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF GEORGIA) ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF HAWAll ) ex rel. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF ) INDIANA ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE ) FILED UNDER SEAL OF LOUISIANA ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, ) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ex ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF MICHIGAN) ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF ) NEVADA ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE ) OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ex rei. BERNARD ) LISITZA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rei. ) BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF NEW YORK ex ) rei. BERNARD LISITZA, STATE OF ) TENNESSEE ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, ) STATE OF TEXAS ex rei. BERNARD LISITZA, ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ex rei. ) BERNARD LISITZA, and BERNARD LISITZA, ) individually, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) PFIZER, INC., BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB, CO., ) JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ORTHO-MCNEIL ) PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and JANSSEN, LP, ) Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 n. PARTIES .............................................................................................. ,', .. , ............... , .. ,"" 6 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..... , ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected] [email protected] MARK A
    Case 5:19-cv-02573-SVK Document 1 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 136 1 DURIE TANGRI LLP HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825) STEVE D. SHADOWEN (pro hac vice pending) 2 [email protected] [email protected] MARK A. LEMLEY (SBN 155830) ROBERT C. HILLIARD (pro hac vice pending) 3 [email protected] [email protected] DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289) RICHARD BRUNELL (pro hac vice pending) 4 [email protected] [email protected] LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) MATTHEW C. WEINER (pro hac vice pending) 5 [email protected] [email protected] W. HENRY HUTTINGER (SBN 312843) FRAZAR W. THOMAS (pro hac vice pending) 6 [email protected] [email protected] 217 Leidesdorff Street NICHOLAS W. SHADOWEN (pro hac vice pending) 7 San Francisco, CA 94111 [email protected] Telephone: (415) 362-6666 1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125 8 Facsimile: (415) 236-6300 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 9 (see additional counsel on next page) Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter Staley, Steve Fuller, Gregg S. Gonsalves, PhD, Brenda Emily Goodrow, Andrew R. Spieldenner, PhD, Robert J. Vazquez, 11 Jason Walker, Michael Warner, Jacob Zydonis, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, and Service Employees 12 International Union, Local No. 1 Health Fund 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 PETER STALEY; STEVE FULLER; GREGG S. GONSALVES, PhD; BRENDA EMILY GOODROW; 16 ANDREW R. SPIELDENNER, PhD; ROBERT J. VAZQUEZ; JASON WALKER; MICHAEL 17 WARNER; JACOB ZYDONIS; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT LAUDERDALE 18 LODGE 31, INSURANCE TRUST FUND; and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign-Up Form for the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation
    Sign-up Form for the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation What is the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation? • Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) established the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (BMSPAF) to help patients who need help paying for medicines prescribed by their healthcare providers. BMSPAF is a non-profit organization that helps certain patients get, free of charge, the medicines that are listed in this application. • Patients who meet certain rules will be able to get their prescribed medicines free of charge for up to one year. Every year, you must reapply, and be accepted, to continue in the program. • Once approved, most medicine will be shipped to your home or to your healthcare provider’s office. What medications are available from the Foundation? ABILIFY® (aripiprazole) NULOJIX® (belatacept) BYDUREON® (exenatide extended-release for injectable suspension) ONGLYZA® (saxagliptin) BYETTA® (exenatide) ORENCIA® (abatacept) ELIQUIS® (apixaban) SymlinPen® (pramlintide acetate) Pen Injector TM KOMBIGLYZE XR (saxagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release) Am I able to get medication free of charge? You may be able to get medicine free of charge through the Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation if: • You are being treated as an outpatient with one of the medicines listed in this application. • You live in the USA, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. • You meet the income limits for your medicine. You will need to send your most recent Federal Tax Return or other proof of income. • You do not have insurance coverage for your BMS medicines or you are signed up for a Medicare Part D plan and have spent at least 3% of your yearly household income on out-of-pocket costs for prescription medicines this year.
    [Show full text]