The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-15819•Graceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. River's Edge
09-15819Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitMay 25, 2010
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 25, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-15819
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00067-CV-RWS-2
GRACEWAY PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
CHESTER VALLEY PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
RIVER’S EDGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 25, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We have carefully reviewed the briefs on appeal and the record in this case.
We have had the benefit of oral argument. Our resolution of this case has adhered
-- 1 of 2 --
strictly to the particular arguments asserted on appeal by appellants. We also note
that the record in this case is deficient; the primary record evidence relied upon by
appellants for crucial elements of its proof is a survey of pharmacists, which was
flawed in several respects, including in particular that the survey did not describe
actual advertisements at issue or reveal the fact that none of the drugs involved was
either approved by FDA or required to be approved. After careful deliberation, and
on the basis of the limited record in this case, and addressing only the particular
arguments raised by the appellants on appeal, we cannot conclude that the district
court committed reversible error.1
For these limited reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Although we have some concern about the application of Georgia law, appellants1
have failed to articulate a persuasive argument challenging the district court in this regard.
Limiting ourselves to appellants’ particular arguments on appeal, we decline to disturb the
district court’s ruling. We do note that the district court’s opinion clearly could have no
persuasive or preclusive value in a case not involving Georgia law.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.