|
|
|
 |
|
Western Sugar Cooperative, et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, et al.
Corn Refiners Association
We are currently representing the Corn Refiners Association (“CRA”) and the U.S. manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc., Cargill, Corn Products International, and Roquette America, Inc., in a high-profile false advertising matter recently filed against the association and its members by Western Sugar Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, and C&H Sugar Company, Inc., and other manufacturers or refiners of sugar and their trade associations. The suit alleges that the defendants’ efforts to describe high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar,” natural, and nutritionally and metabolically equivalent to cane and beet sugar, is false and misleading under the federal Lanham Act
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Barr Labs. Inc.
Teva North America
We obtained a favorable settlement for client Teva/Barr Laboratories, Inc. in case filed by GlaxoSmithKline after Barr filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Dutasteride, which is used to treat benign prostatic hypertrophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maclean Power, LLC v. PDEX USA, Corp. et al.
MacLean-Fogg Company
Winston secured two very favorable settlement agreements on behalf of MacLean-Fogg Company and MacLean Power LLP in connection with a Lanham Act trademark violation case against two United States distributors that had been passing off Chinese counterfeits of our client's products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA , Inc.
Teva North America
We are currently representing Barr/Teva North America in a case involving the oral contraceptive pill Yaz®. Barr filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market its generic equivalent of Yaz® (drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol) and provided notice to Bayer Schering pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. Bayer Schering did not sue Barr within 45 days as allowed by the Act, and Barr/Teva launched its generic version of Yaz®. Bayer Schering responded with a motion seeking a TRO, which the Northern District of Illinois denied. Bayer Schering also filed an action for patent infringement in the District of Delaware, which has been dismissed, and an action in the District of Nevada, which is pending. Barr/Teva filed an action in the Southern District of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Select A Region
Search for an attorney.
