`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`SEBELA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and
`PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
` C.A. No. _________
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`TRUPHARMA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Sebela Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Perrigo New York, Inc. for their Complaint
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`against Defendant TruPharma, LLC hereby state and allege as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Sebela is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware
`
`with a principal place of business in Roswell, Georgia.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Perrigo is organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with a
`
`principal place of business in Allegan, Michigan.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant TruPharma is a limited liability company
`
`organized under the laws of Delaware with an address of 4100 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite
`
`220, Tampa, FL, 33609.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma is a privately owned pharmaceutical
`
`company, whose products are advertised and marketed through all major distribution channels in
`
`the United States.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Doe TruPharma is other persons or entities involved
`
`in the false and misleading activities alleged herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1121, as this case arises under
`
`the Lanham Act. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state and
`
`common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`7.
`
`At all times relevant to this lawsuit, TruPharma, and one or more of its agents,
`
`have been engaged in the business of advertising, promoting, marketing, distributing, and/or
`
`selling, within the State of Delaware and in interstate commerce throughout the United States,
`
`the products which are the subject of this Complaint, namely, a hydrocortisone acetate 2.5% and
`
`pramoxine hydrochloride 1% cream that is marketed under NDC Code 52817-0817-01
`
`(hereinafter, “TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product”).
`
`8.
`
`TruPharma is subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware because, upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant TruPharma is incorporated in Delaware; TruPharma transacts
`
`business and/or advertise or contract to supply services or things in this State; TruPharma has
`
`caused tortious injury in Delaware by an act or omission committed in Delaware; TruPharma has
`
`caused tortious injury in Delaware by an act or omission outside Delaware; TruPharma has
`
`caused tortious injury to a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
`
`TruPharma is incorporated in Delaware and subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Sebela’s Products
`
`Sebela is in the business of marketing, promoting, distributing, and selling
`
`A.
`
`10.
`
`authorized prescription pharmaceutical products in the gastroenterology and dermatology fields,
`
`including certain hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine hydrochloride products formerly owned
`
`by Ferndale Laboratories, Inc. (later reorganized as Ferndale Pharma Group, Inc.) (“Ferndale”).
`
`11.
`
` From at least the 1970s, Ferndale developed, manufactured, and marketed a line
`
`of prescription products containing varying dosages of hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine
`
`hydrochloride in cream, lotion, or ointment form (collectively, the “HCA/Pram Products”),
`
`which are currently marketed under the trademarks and trade names “PRAMOSONE”
`
`(“PRAMOSONE”) and “ANALPRAM HC” (“ANALPRAM”).
`
`12.
`
`The PRAMOSONE and ANALPRAM prescription products have been
`
`continuously on the market for over 30 years and are topical corticosteroids with anti-
`
`inflammatory, antipruritic, and vasoconstrictive qualities and are available only by prescription.
`
`13.
`
`In the 1970s, Ferndale submitted and received Food and Drug Administration
`
`(“FDA”) approval of several ANDAs for a number of hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine
`
`hydrochloride products, including the HCA/Pram Products.
`
`14.
`
`On July 1, 1988, the FDA published in the Federal Register a Notice of
`
`Opportunity for a Hearing (“NOOH”) regarding the regulatory status of fixed combination drug
`
`products that contain hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine hydrochloride, which included
`
`Ferndale’s HCA/Pram Products. (53 Fed. Reg. 25013 (July 1, 1988)).
`
`15.
`
`Under the NOOH, the FDA required the ANDA holders to submit clinical
`
`evidence within 60 days of the NOOH showing that genuine and material issues of fact exist
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`about the effectiveness of the drug that require an administrative hearing for resolution.
`
`16.
`
`In response to the 1988 FDA notice, Ferndale submitted a timely hearing request
`
`for the HCA/Pram Products. This request for hearing was affirmed by Ferndale Laboratories,
`
`Inc., on January 3, 2011. (77 Fed. Reg. 43337 (July 24, 2012)).
`
`17.
`
`As recently as 2017, FDA confirmed that the HCA/Pram Products are subject to
`
`the NOOH proceedings.
`
`18.
`
`In 2013, Sebela acquired the right to sell and promote the HCA/Pram Products in
`
`the United States. Sebela has marketed, promoted, and/or sold the HCA/Pram Products since
`
`that time, and has derived income and revenue therefrom. Ferndale continues to act as the
`
`manufacturer of these products.
`
`19.
`
`In addition to product rights, Sebela acquired all of Ferndale’s regulatory rights
`
`and history concerning the HCA/Pram Products, including historical correspondence between
`
`Ferndale and the FDA.
`
`20.
`
`Having acquired these product rights in 2013, Sebela, either directly or as FDA
`
`agent for the ANDA owner, received and asserts the same exclusive legal rights to a hearing and
`
`other regulatory procedures under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), and
`
`which assertion has been affirmed by the FDA.
`
`21.
`
`One of the HCA/Pram Products marketed by Sebela is hydrocortisone acetate
`
`2.5% pramoxine hydrochloride 1% cream, which is marketed under the PRAMOSONE and
`
`ANALPRAM trademarks and trade names (hereinafter, “PRAMOSONE Cream”).
`
`22.
`
`PRAMOSONE Cream is a topical preparation containing hydrocortisone acetate
`
`2.5% w/w and pramoxine hydrochloride 1% w/w in a hydrophilic cream base containing stearic
`
`acid, cetyl alcohol, Aquaphor®, isopropyl palmitate, polyoxyl 40 stearate, propylene glycol,
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`potassium sorbate, sorbic acid, triethanolamine lauryl sulfate, and purified water.
`
`23.
`
`Sebela has expended significant resources in the marketing and selling its
`
`prescription products in compliance with existing laws and regulations and derives economic
`
`benefits, including revenue and profits, through sales of PRAMOSONE Cream.
`
`24.
`
`Sebela enjoys a strong reputation and has developed substantial goodwill among
`
`suppliers, medical professionals, pharmacists, wholesalers, regulators, consumers and others in
`
`connection with PRAMOSONE Cream, which is manufactured in accordance with current good
`
`manufacturing practices (“cGMP”).
`
`25.
`
`Sebela maintains contractual relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers,
`
`pharmaceutical drug databases, insurers, wholesalers, distributors, and/or suppliers in order to
`
`make and sell PRAMOSONE Cream. These contractual relationships result in economic
`
`benefits to Sebela, and will continue to do so in the future. These contractual relationships are
`
`standard for the industry.
`
`B.
`
`26.
`
`Perrigo’s Authorized Cream
`
`Perrigo is in the business of marketing, promoting, distributing, and selling
`
`authorized prescription pharmaceutical products in the gastroenterology and dermatology fields,
`
`including certain hydrocortisone acetate and pramoxine hydrochloride products.
`
`27. With Sebela’s authorization, Perrigo markets a hydrocortisone acetate 2.5%
`
`pramoxine hydrochloride 1% cream (“Perrigo’s authorized cream”).
`
`28.
`
`Perrigo enjoys a strong reputation and has developed substantial goodwill among
`
`suppliers, medical professionals, pharmacists, wholesalers, regulators, consumers and others in
`
`connection with Perrigo’s authorized cream, which is manufactured in accordance with current
`
`good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”).
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Perrigo maintains contractual relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers,
`
`pharmaceutical drug databases, insurers, wholesalers, distributors, and/or suppliers in order to
`
`make and sell Perrigo’s authorized cream. These contractual relationships result in economic
`
`benefits to Perrigo, and will continue to do so in the future. These contractual relationships are
`
`standard for the industry.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma is exploiting Plaintiffs’ success by
`
`falsely marketing TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product as an unauthorized “generic”
`
`version of Sebela’s PRAMOSONE Cream.
`
`C. TruPharma Advertises and Markets TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`Product as a Generic Substitute for PRAMOSONE Cream
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma, directly and by implication, has
`
`represented and continue to represent to wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies, and other
`
`members of the pharmaceutical industry that TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is a
`
`“generic” equivalent of Sebela’s PRAMOSONE Cream and substitutable therefore.
`
`32.
`
`TruPharma represents itself as having “critical experience in pharmaceutical
`
`development, manufacturing, patent challenges, and all aspects of generic product sales and
`
`marketing.” TruPharma further promotes its generic products through its “proven track record
`
`of building niche product portfolios and getting difficult products FDA-approved and into the
`
`market.” Exhibit 1.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma advertises and promote TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product as a “generic” version of PRAMOSONE Cream to
`
`wholesalers, distributors, insurance companies, pharmacies and other members of the
`
`pharmaceutical industry.
`
`34.
`
`TruPharma has advertised TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product on the
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`pharmaceutical database, MediSpan Price Rx Pro, as early as October 21, 2020.
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma advertises and promotes TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product as a “generic equivalent” of PRAMOSONE Cream on
`
`pharmaceutical drug databases and price lists (hereinafter, the “Drug Databases”). For example,
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product appears as follows:
`
`
`
`36.
`
`The Drug Databases are specialized marketing channels which are used
`
`nationwide by manufacturers to advertise and promote their products.
`
`37.
`
`The Drug Databases are used by wholesalers, pharmacies, pharmacists, insurers,
`
`health care professionals, and others in the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate medications that
`
`are currently on the market and determine whether “generic” versions of brand-name products
`
`are available.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, based upon the representations of TruPharma to the
`
`Drug Databases, TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has been or will be listed and
`
`“linked” on the Drug Databases as an equivalent product to Sebela’s PRAMOSONE cream and
`
`Perrigo’s authorized cream.
`
`39.
`
`The listing and “linking” of products on the Drug Databases is used by
`
`pharmacies, pharmacists, wholesalers, pharmaceutical buyers, and insurance companies and
`
`others to determine whether there are any generic substitutes available for a particular brand
`
`product.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Based upon the listing and linking of the products in the Drug Databases, these
`
`relevant market players believe that the linked pharmaceutical products are FDA-approved
`
`generic equivalents that are automatically substitutable for the brand name product.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, based upon TruPharma’s representations, relevant
`
`market players, including wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacists, insurers and others,
`
`are being deceived into believing that the TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has
`
`been reviewed or approved by the FDA as a generic equivalent of Sebela’s PRAMOSONE
`
`Cream.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, through its marketing of TruPharma’s Unauthorized
`
`HCA/Pram Product, TruPharma is also representing, expressly or impliedly, that TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is properly substitutable for Sebela’s PRAMOSONE Cream
`
`and Perrigo’s authorized cream, and/or properly automatically substitutable for Sebela’s
`
`PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s authorized cream at the pharmacy level.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma’s false and misleading representations
`
`have deceived wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacists, insurers and others in the
`
`industry into believing that TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has been reviewed
`
`or approved by the FDA as a generic equivalent of PRAMOSONE Cream and that it is
`
`automatically substitutable therefore, causing Plaintiffs monetary and other harm as further
`
`detailed below.
`
`D. TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is not a Generic Equivalent of
`or Automatically Substitutable for PRAMOSONE Cream
`
`44.
`
`Notwithstanding TruPharma’s advertising and promotional efforts, TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is a new product that has not been approved by the FDA and is
`
`not a “generic equivalent” of Sebela’s PRAMOSONE Cream, nor is it substitutable therefor.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`45.
`
`True generic drugs are “therapeutically equivalent” to their branded rivals.
`
`“Therapeutically equivalent” drugs must be both “pharmaceutically equivalent” (that is, they
`
`have identical active ingredients, strength, and dosage form) and “bioequivalent” (that is, the
`
`bioavailability--the rate and extent to which the active ingredients are absorbed by the body--is
`
`the same).
`
`46.
`
`To market a drug as a “generic,” the drug manufacturer or distributor must also
`
`submit an application to the FDA summarizing the testing it has performed to establish
`
`therapeutic equivalence between the referenced drug and the generic version of the drug.
`
`47.
`
`The majority of states, including Delaware, prohibit generic substitution of a drug
`
`for a prescribed brand-name drug unless the substitute is therapeutically equivalent to the
`
`prescribed drug.
`
`48.
`
`Delaware defines “generic substitution” as “a drug that is the same active
`
`ingredient, equivalent in strength to the strength written on the prescription and which is
`
`classified as being therapeutically equivalent to another drug in the latest edition or supplement
`
`of the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
`
`Equivalence Evaluations, sometimes referred to as the ‘Orange Book.’” 24 Del. C. § 2502(32).
`
`49.
`
`Notwithstanding TruPharma’s marketing, TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product is not a generic equivalent of or substitutable for PRAMOSONE Cream.
`
`50.
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has not been reviewed or
`
`approved by the FDA as a “generic” of PRAMOSONE Cream or any other product.
`
`51.
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has not been reviewed or
`
`approved by the FDA as a therapeutic equivalent of PRAMOSONE Cream or any other product.
`
`52.
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is not listed as therapeutically
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`equivalent to PRAMOSONE Cream in the Orange Book.
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is
`
`not therapeutically equivalent to the PRAMOSONE Cream product.
`
`54.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, TruPharma has not
`
`tested TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product for therapeutic equivalence to PRAMOSONE Cream.
`
`55.
`
`Additionally, upon information and belief, TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product is an unapproved product which TruPharma did not market prior to 2019.
`
`56.
`
`Unlike Sebela, TruPharma is not a party to the NOOH administrative process for
`
`HCA/Pram Products, which has been in place since 1988.
`
`57.
`
`TruPharma’s marketing efforts have misled consumers into believing that
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is generic to and substitutable for PRAMOSONE
`
`Cream and Perrigo’s authorized cream, when in fact it is not.
`
`58.
`
`As a result of TruPharma’s false and misleading representations about
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product, Plaintiffs’ goodwill is being harmed and will
`
`continue to be harmed and Plaintiffs will suffer eroding sales of their authorized HCA/Pram
`
`products.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, as a result of TruPharma’s false and misleading
`
`representations about its product, TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product will be
`
`improperly substituted by pharmacists who receive prescriptions written for PRAMOSONE
`
`Cream or Perrigo’s authorized cream.
`
`60.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiffs do not and cannot control the safety, effectiveness, or
`
`quality of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`61.
`
`Doctors and patients who suffer bad or disappointing experiences such as denial
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`of coverage for PRAMOSONE Cream or Perrigo’s authorized cream, or suffer adverse reactions
`
`with TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product, are likely to attribute such negative
`
`experiences to Plaintiffs and PRAMOSONE Cream or Perrigo’s authorized cream, thereby
`
`further harming PRAMOSONE Cream or Perrigo’s authorized cream sales and Plaintiffs’
`
`goodwill.
`
`E. The Resulting Harm to Plaintiffs
`
`62.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, TruPharma’s
`
`false
`
`representations about
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product deceive members of the pharmaceutical industry
`
`into believing that it is generically equivalent to and substitutable for PRAMOSONE Cream and
`
`Perrigo’s authorized cream, when in fact it is not.
`
`63. Wholesalers, pharmacies, pharmacists, insurers, health care professionals, and
`
`others in the pharmaceutical industry are likely to be deceived and, upon information and belief
`
`are actually being deceived, by TruPharma’s false and misleading representations about
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma knows that their marketing of
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product is likely to deceive and is actually deceiving
`
`drug wholesalers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacists, and others in the industry about the
`
`nature, characteristics, and qualities of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product and will
`
`cause improper refusal of insurance coverage for PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s authorized
`
`cream, loss of formulary listing or reduced formulary coverage for PRAMOSONE Cream and
`
`Perrigo’s authorized cream, and improper substitution of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product for PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s authorized cream.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma has not only engaged in the false
`
`advertising and marketing of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product, but have also done
`
`so willfully.
`
`66.
`
`Through these and other false and misleading representations, TruPharma has and
`
`will continue to cause harm to the reputation and goodwill that Sebela and Ferndale have
`
`developed over thirty (30) years in the industry and, have caused and will continue to cause
`
`Plaintiffs to lose both revenue and market share.
`
`COUNT I
`
`False Advertising Under the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`67.
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`68.
`
`Upon information and belief, in the course of advertising and marketing the
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product, TruPharma has used, in interstate commerce and
`
`in commercial advertising, false and misleading representations of fact that misrepresent the true
`
`nature, characteristics, and potential health risks of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product.
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma has made false or misleading
`
`representations of fact about its product, including that TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product is a generic equivalent to and substitutable for PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s
`
`authorized cream.
`
`70.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma’s representations about TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product to members of the pharmaceutical industry constitute
`
`commercial advertising or promotion.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`71.
`
`TruPharma’s misrepresentations about TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product relate to inherent qualities or characteristics of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product.
`
`72.
`
`TruPharma’s false and misleading representations are material in that they are
`
`likely to influence the purchasing decisions of wholesalers, third-party payors, pharmacists,
`
`health care professionals, insurers, and others in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as patients
`
`who use Plaintiffs’ products.
`
`73.
`
`TruPharma’s representations about TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product have deceived and/or have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its intended
`
`audience.
`
`74.
`
`Upon information and belief, but for TruPharma’s false and misleading
`
`statements, wholesalers, third-party payors, pharmacists, health care professionals, patients,
`
`insurers, and others in the pharmaceutical industry would not list, purchase, distribute, prescribe,
`
`cover, or use TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`75.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma’s actions have been willful and
`
`deliberate.
`
`76.
`
`Among other things, since at least November 2020, TruPharma has been aware of
`
`Sebela’s position that TruPharma’s advertising and marketing of TruPharma’s Unauthorized
`
`HCA/Pram Product will be false and misleading. Despite this knowledge, TruPharma has
`
`proceeded to advertise and market TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product to members
`
`of the pharmaceutical industry in a manner that is likely to confuse and mislead.
`
`77.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TruPharma’s actions, Plaintiffs have and will
`
`continue to suffer damage to their business, reputation, goodwill, and the loss of sales, profits,
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`and customers.
`
`78.
`
`TruPharma’s actions as alleged herein have caused, are causing, and will continue
`
`to cause irreparable and inherently unquantifiable injury and harm to Plaintiffs’ business,
`
`reputation, and goodwill, unless enjoined by this Court.
`
`79.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent
`
`injunctive relief to TruPharma’s continuing acts.
`
`80.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble damages
`
`sustained by TruPharma’s actions, an accounting for profits realized by TruPharma, and the costs
`
`of this action.
`
`81.
`
`In addition, as this is an exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a),
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Contributory False Advertising under the Lanham Act - 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`83.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma is knowingly inducing or causing,
`
`and/or materially participating in, the false and misleading advertising and promotion of
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product by Drug Databases, wholesalers, pharmacies,
`
`insurers, and/or other members of the pharmaceutical industry to advertise and promote
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product as an FDA-approved “generic” product that is
`
`generically equivalent to and substitutable for PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s authorized
`
`cream.
`
`84.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma knew and/or intended to participate in
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`the false advertising of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product by Drug Databases,
`
`wholesalers, pharmacies, insurers, and/or other members of the pharmaceutical industry.
`
`85.
`
`TruPharma actively and materially furthered such false and misleading
`
`advertising and promotion of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product by expressly or
`
`impliedly representing that TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product was equivalent to
`
`and/or substitutable for the PRAMOSONE Cream and Perrigo’s authorized cream and, upon
`
`information and belief, by listing the product with the Drug Databases.
`
`86.
`
`Such false and misleading representations about TruPharma’s Unauthorized
`
`HCA/Pram Product by Drug Databases, wholesalers, pharmacies, insurers, and/or other members
`
`of the pharmaceutical industry have actually deceived or have the tendency to deceive a
`
`substantial segment of their audience as to the nature, quality, and characteristics of TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`87.
`
`Such false and misleading representations about TruPharma’s Unauthorized
`
`HCA/Pram Product by Drug Databases, wholesalers, pharmacies, insurers, and/or other members
`
`of the pharmaceutical industry are material and likely to influence the purchasing decisions of
`
`wholesalers, third-party payors, pharmacists, health care professionals, insurers, and others in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry, as well as patients who use Plaintiffs’ products.
`
`88.
`
`Upon information and belief, these false or misleading representations were and
`
`are made in interstate commerce.
`
`89.
`
`Upon information and belief, TruPharma’s actions have been willful and
`
`deliberate.
`
`90.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of TruPharma’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
`
`damages, which includes a loss of reputation, sales, profits and customers.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`91.
`
`Defendant actions as alleged herein have caused, are causing, and will continue to
`
`cause irreparable and inherently unquantifiable injury and harm to Plaintiffs’ business,
`
`reputation, and goodwill, unless TruPharma’s unlawful conduct is enjoined by this Court.
`
`92.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent
`
`injunctive relief to TruPharma’s continuing acts.
`
`93.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble damages
`
`sustained by TruPharma’s actions, an accounting for profits realized by TruPharma, and the costs
`
`of this action.
`
`94.
`
`In addition, as this is an exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a),
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Unfair Competition Under the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`95.
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`96.
`
`By virtue of TruPharma’s false or misleading representations, as detailed above,
`
`TruPharma is also liable for unfair competition under the Lanham Act.
`
`97.
`
`TruPharma’s false and/or misleading representations of fact are likely to cause
`
`confusion or mistake or to deceive as to TruPharma’s affiliation, connection or association with
`
`Sebela and/or the FDA.
`
`98.
`
`TruPharma’s false and/or misleading representations of fact are also likely to
`
`cause confusion or mistake or to deceive as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product and/or TruPharma’s commercial activities by
`
`Sebela and/or the FDA.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`99.
`
`Additionally, consumers,
`
`including purchasers, wholesalers, distributors,
`
`prescribers, insurers, and pharmacists, may be deceived into believing that TruPharma’s
`
`Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product has been approved or authorized by Sebela and/or the FDA.
`
`100. Moreover, Sebela has become uniquely associated with PRAMOSONE Cream,
`
`which association is being unlawfully appropriated and impaired by Defendant.
`
`101. Plaintiffs are likely to and has been damaged by TruPharma’s conduct, as detailed
`
`herein. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for TruPharma’s unfair competition, an accounting of
`
`profits and recovery of Plaintiffs’ costs of this action.
`
`102. Because some of the damage to Plaintiffs’ reputation and the reputation of their
`
`products cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages, and TruPharma’s conduct is
`
`causing irreparable and inherently unquantifiable injury and harm to Plaintiffs’ business,
`
`reputation, and goodwill, Plaintiffs are entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent
`
`injunctive relief, enjoining TruPharma from further unfair competition, including without
`
`limitation, removing the false and misleading listings for TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram
`
`Product from the Drug Databases.
`
`103. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble damages
`
`sustained by TruPharma’s actions, an accounting for profits realized by TruPharma, and the costs
`
`of this action.
`
`104.
`
`In addition, as this is an exceptional case pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a),
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`
`105. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`paragraphs of this Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
`
`106. 6 Del. C. § 2533 provides a private right of action to enforce the provisions of 6
`
`Del C. § 2532.
`
`107.
`
`In the course of its business, TruPharma has engaged and continue to engage in
`
`deceptive trade practices in violation of 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (9), and (12) by
`
`and through their false and misleading representations of fact and conduct with respect to
`
`TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`108. Upon information and belief, TruPharma has willfully engaged in these actions
`
`knowing them to be deceptive.
`
`109. By reason of TruPharma’s actions, Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer
`
`damage to their business, reputation, and goodwill and the loss of sales and profits.
`
`110. Pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 2533, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief, treble
`
`damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Common Law Unfair Competition
`
`111. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as though set forth fully herein.
`
`112. TruPharma has intentionally and maliciously made false statements and material
`
`omissions in its marketing and sale of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product.
`
`113. Through these actions, as described above, TruPharma has wrongfully interfered
`
`with Plaintiffs’ reasonable business expectancies concerning PRAMOSONE Cream and
`
`Perrigo’s authorized cream, including expected sales.
`
`114. By reason of TruPharma’s actions, Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01677-UNA Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`damage to their business, reputation, and goodwill and the loss of sales and profits.
`
`115. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for TruPharma’s unfair competition, an
`
`accounting of profits made on sales of TruPharma’s Unauthorized HCA/Pram Product an