Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitsettlementinjunctionappealcorporationcompliancehearsayadmissibility
lawsuitsettlementinjunctionappealcorporationhearsayadmissibility

Related Cases

Crowley v. State, 120 Nev. 30, 83 P.3d 282
View Case »
U.S. v. Saada, 212 F.3d 210, 53 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1377
View Case »
Gordon v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.3d 157, 207 Cal.Rptr. 327
View Case »
People v. Ewoldt, 7 Cal.4th 380, 867 P.2d 757, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646
View Case »
United States v. Old Chief, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 494827
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., 189 F.3d 218, 173 A.L.R. Fed. 685, 1999-2 Trade Cases P 72,621, 51 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1

Facts

Schering Corporation, which produces the antihistamine Claritin, filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and UCB Pharma, alleging that their representatives were falsely advertising Zyrtec, a competing antihistamine. Following a settlement agreement in 1996, which prohibited misleading claims about Zyrtec's sedating effects, Schering conducted several surveys to monitor compliance. The results indicated that Pfizer's representatives were misrepresenting Zyrtec's sedative properties, prompting Schering to seek a preliminary injunction against Pfizer for ongoing violations.

Schering Corporation, which produces the antihistamine Claritin, filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and UCB Pharma, alleging that their representatives were falsely advertising Zyrtec, a competing antihistamine.

Issue

Did the district court err in excluding the survey evidence presented by Schering, which was critical to its claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act and the settlement agreement?

Did the district court err in excluding the survey evidence presented by Schering, which was critical to its claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act and the settlement agreement?

Rule

Surveys can be admitted as evidence under the hearsay exceptions, specifically the present state of mind exception and the residual exception, provided they meet certain methodological standards.

Surveys can be admitted as evidence under the hearsay exceptions, specifically the present state of mind exception and the residual exception, provided they meet certain methodological standards.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the surveys without properly considering their admissibility under the hearsay exceptions. The surveys were relevant to establish the physicians' present impressions of the communications made by Pfizer's representatives, which could indicate false advertising. The court emphasized that methodological flaws in surveys typically affect their weight rather than their admissibility.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the surveys without properly considering their admissibility under the hearsay exceptions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for reconsideration of the survey evidence.

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for reconsideration of the survey evidence.

Who won?

Schering Corporation prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly excluded critical evidence that could support Schering's claims.

Schering Corporation prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly excluded critical evidence that could support Schering's claims.

You must be