Eli Lilly and Co. v. Roussel Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• referring to New Jersey’s unfair competition law as \including” or \encompassing” the torts of passing off and unprivileged imitation
• dismissing false advertising claims under Section 43(a) because they either sought redress for violations of the FDCA or did not allege affirmative misrepresentations
• relying on testimony that the defendant “periodically 24 competitively bids” for contracts to determine that it had a “compensatory contractual 25 relationship with the federal government” and was not “a recipient of federal financial 26 assistance”
• dismissing plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to point to any statements or representations in defendants’ advertising which declared that they had obtained proper FDA approval and finding this was a veiled attempt at enforcing the FDCA
• explaining Rule 9(b) requires plaintiffs to describe “the circumstances of the alleged fraud with precise allegations of date, time or place,” or alternatively, to “use some means of ‘injecting precision and some measure of substantiation into their allegations of fraud’”
• “[I]t is the plaintiff’s (as opposed to a third party’s) conferral of a benefit on defendant which forms the basis of an unjust enrichment claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).