A Texan drug compounder cannot rely on federal law to avoid a lawsuit over copycat sales of a rheumatoid arthritis treatment, clearing the way for Zyla Life Sciences to pursue claims under state competition laws.
The US Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's dismissal of Zyla's lawsuit against Wells Pharma of Houston, which sells a compounded version of indomethacin suppositories. The court found that federal law does not override state laws in this case, sending the matter back for further proceedings.
In the ruling, the court wrote that “to establish its preemption defense,” Wells Pharma had to show that the state laws placed different or additional requirements on its conduct. That bar, the court said, had not been met.
This article is accessible to registered users, to continue reading please register for free. A free trial will give you access to exclusive features, interviews, round-ups and commentary from the sharpest minds in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space for a week. If you are already a registered user please login. If your trial has come to an end, you can subscribe here.
Login to your accountTry before you buy
7 day trial access
Become a subscriber
Or £77 per month
The Pharma Letter is an extremely useful and valuable Life Sciences service that brings together a daily update on performance people and products. It’s part of the key information for keeping me informed
Chairman, Sanofi Aventis UK
Copyright © The Pharma Letter 2025 | Headless Content Management with Blaze