| Date | # | Docket Text | |||||||||||||||||||
| 1/9/2014 | 3 | MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice by R. Cameron Garrison. Fee $100 receipt number 0860-2366950. Filed by Pegasus Laboratories, Inc (Stevenson, Laurel) (Entered: 01/09/2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 1/9/2014 | 2 | MOTION for Order (Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server) by Pegasus Laboratories, Inc (Stevenson, Laurel) (Entered: 01/09/2014) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 1/8/2014 | 1 | COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against US Compounding, Inc (Filing Fee of $ 400, Receipt #LIT 043828), filed by Pegasus Laboratories, Inc. Summons not issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(mcz) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
|
Human Medications, Human Drugs, Animal Medications, Animal Drugs, Pharmacy law, Pharmaceutical law, Compounding law, Sterile and Non Sterile Compounding 797 Compliance, Veterinary law, Veterinary Compounding Law; Health Care; Awareness of all Types of Compounding Issues; Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), Outsourcing Facilities Food and Drug Administration and Compliance Issues
Showing posts with label patent infringement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patent infringement. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Pegasus Laboratories, Inc v. US Compounding, Inc. for Patent Infringement in Eastern District of Arkansas
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Veterinarians and Compounders Beware!!! Why Are More Cases Like These Recent Ones of Patent Infringement Not Filed By Manufacturers Against Compounders Who Are Violating the Law? Pegasus Laboratories Inc. v Diamondback Drugs LLC and Weatherford Compounding Company
July 11, 2013
by Sue Tuck Richmond
The drug developer and manufacturer Pegasus Laboratories Inc. filed several lawsuits in the federal district court of Kansas on July 10, 2013, against compounding pharmacies that tailor-makes veterinary medicines. These complaint allege that the compounding pharmacy are infringing patents for a drug to treat a nervous-system disorder-- equine protozoal myeloencephalitis or EPM-in horses. The compounded medication product for treatment of EPM is compounded from bulk active sulfadiazine and pyrimethamine ingredients.
Prior to the filing the federal lawsuit, Pegasus
notified the compounding pharmacies of the three patents Pegasus held for its equine drug ReBalance and
warned the companies to stop infringing. The compounding pharmacies allegedly wrote
back denying that they produced custom-made versions of the patented
formula. Pegasus is asking for a jury trial.
These cases will be very interesting to track, especially in light of the pending legislation and reform being undertaken in the compounding world. These case represent just a small sampling of the many issues involved on the veterinary compounding side of the equation. Should manufacturers be left with no choice but to file federal lawsuits? Should state pharmacy boards and veterinary boards work together to combat this problem? Should inspections be done of veterinary clinics to see how many compounds sitting on the shelf are illegal? Aren't people with specialized knowledge of veterinary medications and compounds greatly needed to help Congress, state boards of pharmacy, state veterinary boards, and the FDA to understand this area, formulate a plan, and rein in all the abuses in this area?
Diamondback Drugs, LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-02334, the Hon. Eric F. Melgren can be viewed here
Weatherford Compounding Pharmacy, Case No. 2:13-cv-02333-CM-KGS, the Hon. Carlos Murguia presiding, can be viewed here
by Sue Tuck Richmond
The drug developer and manufacturer Pegasus Laboratories Inc. filed several lawsuits in the federal district court of Kansas on July 10, 2013, against compounding pharmacies that tailor-makes veterinary medicines. These complaint allege that the compounding pharmacy are infringing patents for a drug to treat a nervous-system disorder-- equine protozoal myeloencephalitis or EPM-in horses. The compounded medication product for treatment of EPM is compounded from bulk active sulfadiazine and pyrimethamine ingredients.
These cases will be very interesting to track, especially in light of the pending legislation and reform being undertaken in the compounding world. These case represent just a small sampling of the many issues involved on the veterinary compounding side of the equation. Should manufacturers be left with no choice but to file federal lawsuits? Should state pharmacy boards and veterinary boards work together to combat this problem? Should inspections be done of veterinary clinics to see how many compounds sitting on the shelf are illegal? Aren't people with specialized knowledge of veterinary medications and compounds greatly needed to help Congress, state boards of pharmacy, state veterinary boards, and the FDA to understand this area, formulate a plan, and rein in all the abuses in this area?
Diamondback Drugs, LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-02334, the Hon. Eric F. Melgren can be viewed here
Weatherford Compounding Pharmacy, Case No. 2:13-cv-02333-CM-KGS, the Hon. Carlos Murguia presiding, can be viewed here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)