Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that fraudulent prong of § 17200 requires “a showing that the public, rather than merely the plaintiff, is likely to be deceived”
• stating if there is no evidence that the force majeure events were specifically negotiated by the parties, the common law meaning of force majeure is read into the contract
• dismissing claim under UCL “unfair” prong when “evidence 14 merely indicate[d] harm to [plaintiff’s] commercial interests, rather than harm to 15 competition”
• finding the plaintiff could not 9 prevail under the “unfair” prong of the UCL where the evidence merely indicated harm to its 10 commercial interests rather than harm to competition
• “it is “necessary under the ‘fraudulent’ prong [of the UCL] to show deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest, and not merely to the direct competitor or other non-consumer party to a contract.” ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).