medical influencers show up in false advertising case

Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Paragon 28, Inc., 2019 WL 4751807,  No. 18-cv-00691-PAB-STV (D. Colo. Sept. 30, 2019)

Wright is a medical device developer, manufacturer, and distributor; its products include surgical plates and other instruments used to repair bones in the foot and ankle areas. Paragon, founded by three former high-level Wright employees, makes competing orthopedic plate systems and other devices used to repair bones in the foot and ankle. Trade secret claims ensued.

Also, Paragon allegedly promoted a “cadaver course” intended to teach surgeons to perform procedures of the foot and listed Dr. Christopher Hyer, a Wright “Key Opinion Leader” (KOL, a common term for a medical influencer), as “anticipated course faculty” on the course’s promotional material. It also allegedly engaged in unfair competition by submitting a patent application that was nearly identical to a patent application that Wright had filed a month prior and by offering several KOLs equity or ownership interests in Paragon, leading to the KOLs using Paragon products in surgical procedures without disclosing their interests.

As to false advertising, Paragon argued that predictions (here, about who would teach the course) couldn’t be false advertising. But Wright alleged that there was never any consent for the use of the doctor’s name in advertising, and that Paragon was aware of this lack of consent, which was enough.  (But that reasoning has to be incomplete: did Wright allege that Paragon never even asked the doctor to teach the course/that he turned them down before they started promoting it? If he had agreed to teach the course, even without specifically consenting to use of his name in advertising the course, it shouldn’t be false advertising, though the right of publicity result might be different (given the First Amendment-implicating nature of the course, though, it might not).)  Anyway, the rule is that, while “[a]n honest or sincere statement of belief about a future event is not actionable,”...a statement known at that time by the speaker to be false, or a statement by a speaker who lacks a good faith belief in the truth of the statement, may constitute an actionable misrepresentation.”

However, Wright failed to adequately plead that the lack of disclosure from KOLs was deceiving the public, and therefore didn’t adequately plead unfair competition as to that.

Nor did Wright adequately plead passing off (or false advertising) based on the dueling patent applications. A patent application is not a tangible good offered for sale and it didn’t constitute commercial advertising or promotion.