Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Ikon Health LLC d/b/a/ Invigor Medical, LLC

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Ikon Health LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action brought by Novo Nordisk alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act, common-law unfair competition, and violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. The court held that Novo Nordisk adequately alleged Article III standing, Lanham Act standing, and injury to business or property under the Washington statute. The court also rejected the defendant’s preemption and failure-to-state-a-claim arguments.

Holdings

1. The complaint adequately alleged Article III standing because it alleged that Ikon Health’s misleading advertising caused consumers to purchase its products under the mistaken belief that they were the same as, or came from, Novo Nordisk, thereby plausibly harming Novo Nordisk’s market share.
2. The complaint adequately alleged Lanham Act standing by alleging injury to Novo Nordisk’s commercial interest in reputation or sales and a proximate causal connection to Ikon Health’s alleged misrepresentations.
3. The complaint adequately alleged standing and an actionable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act by alleging that deceptive advertising harmed Novo Nordisk’s business, market share, and reputation.
4. Federal preemption was not implicated on the allegations presented because Novo Nordisk did not allege that Ikon Health violated federal law merely by selling compounded drugs.
5. The complaint adequately pleaded the elements of the asserted claims by alleging false statements concerning FDA approval and product identity, consumer confusion, and harm to consumers and Novo Nordisk’s market and reputation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint adequately alleged injury in fact, causation, and redressability sufficient to establish Article III standing in a false-advertising action.
2. Whether the complaint adequately alleged commercial injury and proximate cause sufficient to establish standing under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether the complaint adequately alleged injury to business or property causally linked to deceptive acts sufficient to proceed under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
4. Whether the claims were preempted by federal law.
5. Whether the complaint adequately alleged the elements of its false-advertising, unfair-competition, and Washington Consumer Protection Act claims.

Disposition

denied