Tag: #settlement

-Report by Harshit Yadav

The present case of DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED versus RIKON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. is a legal settlement agreement between two parties regarding a trademark dispute that was settled with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The settlement agreement outlines the terms and conditions that both parties have agreed to abide by, and the judgment confirms that the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement agreement, which shall be binding on both parties. The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of court fees, if any, deposited by them.

FACTS:

The parties involved in this case were disputing over the ownership and use of a trademark named “NISE” and “RIKONISE”. The plaintiff was the owner of the trademark “NISE”, which they claimed was being infringed upon by the defendant’s use of the trademark “RIKONISE”. The defendant was manufacturing and using the mark ‘RIKONISE-P’ or ‘NISE-P’ in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations of suspension syrups for domestic sale in India and for export.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the defendant’s use of the mark “RIKONISE-P” infringed upon the plaintiff’s exclusive proprietary rights in the trademark “NISE”.
Whether the defendant’s use of the mark “RIKONISE-P” constituted passing off of their goods as that of the plaintiff’s.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages, the account of profits or any other relief for the alleged infringement and passing off.
Whether the parties could reach a settlement agreement that would resolve the dispute between them.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

The plaintiff claimed that they had exclusive proprietary rights in the trademark “NISE” and that the defendant’s use of the mark “RIKONISE-P” in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations of suspension syrups for domestic sale in India and for export was an infringement of their trademark rights. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant’s use of the mark “RIKONISE-P” was likely to cause confusion among consumers and constitute passing off of their goods as that of the plaintiff.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The defendant, on the other hand, denied that their use of the mark “RIKONISE-P” amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark rights or passing off. The defendant claimed that the mark “RIKONISE-P” was distinctive and not deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “NISE”. The defendant also argued that they had been using the mark “RIKONISE-P” for a long period of time without any objection from the plaintiff and that their use of the mark was honest and in good faith.
The parties also contested whether the plaintiff was entitled to any damages, the account of profits or any other relief for the alleged infringement and passing off.
Finally, the parties attempted to resolve their dispute through mediation, with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre intervening to facilitate the settlement agreement. The contention was whether the settlement agreement was acceptable to both parties and could resolve the dispute between them.

JUDGMENT:

The dispute was resolved with the intervention of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and a settlement agreement was reached between the parties. The terms of the settlement agreement were as follows:

1. The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s exclusive proprietary rights in the trademark “NISE” and agreed not to challenge the plaintiff’s statutory and proprietary rights directly or indirectly in India or globally.
2. The defendant confirmed that they had stopped manufacturing and using the mark ‘RIKONISE-P’ or ‘NISE-P’, directly or indirectly in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations of suspension syrups for domestic sale in India or for export, as per the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 22/07/2022 in CS (COMM) No. 495 of 2022.
3. The defendant confirmed that they had manufactured tablets and capsules under the mark ‘RIKONISE-P TABLETS’ for domestic sale in India and that they had agreed to stop the manufacture and use of tablets under the mark ‘RIKONISE-P TABLETS’.
4. The defendant agreed not to manufacture any fresh batch of products bearing the mark ‘RIKONISE-P’ and ‘RIKONISE-P TABLETS’ and declared that any further production would make them liable for cost and damages.
5. The defendant confirmed that they did not have in stock any further products, packaging, or printed material bearing the mark ‘RIKONISE-P TABLETS’ and ‘RIKONISE-P’ in India, and any unused printed material would be destroyed by the defendant at their own cost.
6. The defendant agreed not to use in future any mark containing the mark “NISE” or “NICE”.
   The defendant undertook to apply to cancel their registration for the mark “RIKONISE” in class 5 within 30 days of recording of these settlement terms.
7. The defendant undertook not to adopt any mark in future that is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “NISE” or carry out any such activities as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to, passing off their goods under captioned Trademark as and for that of the plaintiff.
   

The settlement agreement was binding on both parties, and the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the mediation settlement agreement. The plaintiff was entitled to a refund of court fees, if any, deposited by them. The settlement agreement resolved the trademark dispute between the parties amicably and avoid prolonged litigation.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3l05MFr

–Report by Annette Abraham

The United Health Group Inc. Subsidiary, OptumRX is set to pay $15 Million towards a settlement concerning a suit filed against them in the United State District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The suit, filed in March 2022, claimed that OptumRX overcharged the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation on standard drugs. 

FACTS

OptumRX is a Pharmacy Benefit Manager. PBMs are companies that manage the costs of the prescription drugs that go into the market. Ideally, these companies are expected to serve as middlemen to negotiate for lower prices and discounts on behalf of an individual’s health plan or insurance. 

OptumRX was contracted by the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation, an agency that provides compensation as well as medical benefits for work-related injuries, diseases or death. The Bureau is funded by regular sums taken out of employees’ paychecks. The contract detailed that OptumRX would manage prescription drug costs for the state agency’s employees under a health insurance scheme. Through the contract, OptumRX was required to charge the Bureau the lowest of four potential prices for generic drugs. 

Through a series of emails uncovered by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and his team, it was discovered that OptumRX did not follow the terms of the contract, which led to an overcharge on over 57% of the 2.3 million prescription claims that the bureau received from injured workers in the state between January 2014 and September 2018. 

RESULT

The dispute was settled extra-judicially, with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and the team representing OptumRX coming to an agreement on the terms of the settlement and the compensation owed to the State of Ohio. The office of the Attorney General of Ohio released a statement through their official website on Tuesday (EDT), stating: “OptumRx will repay the state $15 million in prescription-drug overcharges assessed to the Ohio BWC”.

This is not the first time the Ohio court has levied charges against the company with respect to contract breaches and lack of transparency. A suit filed against them in November of 2019 contained similar charges against the PBM, accusing them of misappropriating $16 Million dollars through malpractices. Following this suit, The bureau discontinued its contract with OptumRX.

Attorney General Dave Yost has a history of uncovering the malpractices and misconducts that Pharmacy Benefit Managers often commit through their contracts both with private as well as government-funded organizations and parties. In fact, this lawsuit is a crowning one in AG Dave Yost’s rally against PBMs, his total recoveries from these companies following the OptumRX settlement amounts to more than $100 million. 

PBMs misappropriating funds and misquoting cheques is not a new phenomenon. In 2018, an investigation commissioned by the Ohio Department of Medicaid found that in 2017, USA’s biggest PBMs CVS and OptumRX had together charged taxpayers $244 million more than what they paid the pharmacies that provide Medicaid drugs to the people under various government organizations, pocketing the difference. This investigation was in part, instigated by the auditor of state Dave Yost. 

Previously, Attorney General Dale Yost had recovered $88 million from Centene, a Pharmacy Benefits Manager based out of St. Louis, Missouri. In this lawsuit, various subsidiaries of Centene had been accused of misrepresenting reimbursement requests that had already been paid by third parties. The arrangement of the subsidiaries of Centene also led to artificially inflated dispensing fees. 

Currently, a similar suit is being pursued by Attorney General Dave Yost against a PBM owned by Cigna, Express Scripts, in relation to their contract with Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System. 22 states have currently issued claims against Centene, with Kansas, Mississippi, Illinois and Arkansas following Ohio in reaching settlements with the PBM. 

CONCLUSION

OptumRX is one of the many PBMs that are currently using loopholes and malpractices to misappropriate money from state-managed organizations funded by the US taxpayers. The Ohio Attorney General’s lawsuit against the company is one of many that aim to reduce the impact of such practices on the common man and to return funds to the state. Currently, OptumRX will pay a total sum of $15 million to the state of Ohio to settle the money misappropriated through false charges filed by the company for prescription drugs.