Judge Refuses to Ban Sales of Repro-Med Devices
Since it is well established that FDA Warning Letters do not represent final agency action, in his five-page order, Nunley, an Obama appointee, declined to address these allegations and instead focused on EMED’s claims of irreparable harm if RMS sales in California were not stopped. He found the company had “failed to demonstrate it will be irreparably harmed if an injunction does not issue or the balance of hardships tips in its favor.”
In its argument for the injunction, Nunley wrote, EMED alleged that RMS had committed “unlawful or unfair business acts in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (‘UCL’).” “EMED argues RMS made unlawful and unfair statements about its products which resulted in harm to EMED. … RMS argues that EMED cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because (1) the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (‘FDCA’) preempts EMED’s claims, (2) EMED’s claims fall within the jurisdiction of the FDA, (3) The FDA Warning Letter is not evidence that the FDA made a determination about RMS’s products, (4) RMS’s statements are not false or misleading, and (5) there is no basis for the injunctive relief EMED seeks.”
The dispute between the two companies, and RMS’s allegation of FDA favoritism toward EMED in its regulatory processes, were described here in April.
California Eastern District federal judge Troy L. Nunley 6/5 denied a motion for preliminary injunction seeking a statewide ban on sales of New York-based Repo-Med Systems (RMS) infusion pumps and needle sets because of alleged violations of FDA 510(k) clearance requirements. The injunction was sought by competitor EMED Technologies on claims that it would suffer irreparable harm if RMS’s marketing of the disputed products continued. EMED alleged that a 2/26/16 FDA Warning Letter documented “various violations” found during an inspection and said the RMS devices were misbranded and adulterated because they were being marketed for uses beyond their 510(k) clearances.