Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- David Doty
- 0:24-cv-00774
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Acella v. ANI, Judge Doty denied Acella’s motion to dismiss ANI’s counterclaims in a false-advertising dispute.
Acella’s motion to dismiss was denied, so ANI’s counterclaims remained pending. The order did not determine whether either party’s advertising claims were true.
What happened
Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC sued ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that ANI falsely marketed its competing thyroid medication as a viable generic alternative to Acella’s NP Thyroid®. ANI responded with counterclaims alleging that Acella also made false statements about the products.
ANI’s counterclaims asserted violations of the federal Lanham Act, common law, Minnesota consumer-protection statutes, and Georgia’s deceptive-trade-practices law. ANI alleged that Acella falsely claimed NP Thyroid® was superior, that ANI’s product was not a suitable substitute, and that NP Thyroid® was the generic equivalent of another product.
Judge Doty denied Acella’s motion to dismiss ANI’s counterclaims. The court held that ANI had plausibly alleged its claims and that the numerous facts in the parties’ exhibits made dismissal at this stage inappropriate; the order did not decide whether the allegations were ultimately true.
The detailed version
- Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 0:24-cv-00774
- David Doty
- Dec. 19, 2024
Background
Acella sued ANI over the marketing and manufacture of competing thyroid medications. Acella alleged that ANI violated the Lanham Act, a federal false-advertising law, and Minnesota statutes by falsely representing that ANI’s product was a viable generic alternative to Acella’s NP Thyroid®.
ANI filed counterclaims against Acella. ANI alleged violations of the Lanham Act, common law, Minnesota consumer-protection statutes, and the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Specifically, ANI alleged that Acella falsely represented that NP Thyroid® was superior to ANI’s product, that ANI’s product was not a suitable substitute for NP Thyroid®, and that NP Thyroid® was the generic equivalent to another product on the market.
Motion to dismiss
Acella moved to dismiss ANI’s counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a pleading does not adequately state a claim. The parties relied on numerous exhibits, including exhibits attached to ANI’s counterclaims and materials Acella submitted from third-party websites.
The court explained that it may consider documents incorporated into or embraced by the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss. But the court found that the exhibits contained too many factual matters for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) to be appropriate at this stage.
Ruling
The court found that ANI had plausibly alleged its counterclaims. Judge Doty therefore denied Acella’s motion to dismiss counterclaims, ECF No. 50. The order did not resolve the ultimate truth of the parties’ false-advertising allegations or otherwise decide the merits of the counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.