United States: Ninth Circuit's "Harkonen" Decision Does Not Undermine Recent Second Circuit Precedent Establishing That Truthful Promotion Of Approved Drugs For Off-Label Use Is Protected By The First Amendment

Last Updated: April 6 2013
Article by Martin Seidel, Jason Jurgens, Brian T. McGovern and Ryan J. Andreoli

Most Read Contributor in United States, December 2018

On March 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction of W. Scott Harkonen ("Harkonen"), who had been tried and convicted of wire fraud for issuing a fraudulent press release regarding the results of a clinical trial.1 In its unanimous, unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the jury's finding that Harkonen had engaged in fraudulent speech was supported by sufficient evidence, and therefore the press release at issue was not protected by the First Amendment. Since the Ninth Circuit found that Harkonen's statements were false and misleading, it was not required to and did not address the Second Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012), where the court held that the government's prosecution of a pharmaceutical sales representative for truthful promotion of an approved drug for off-label uses violated the First Amendment.2 Thus, the Harkonen decision does not appear to undermine Caronia or provide support for the government's position prior to Caronia that off-label promotion (even when truthful) constitutes misbranding for purposes of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the "FDCA").

Factual Background

The evidence introduced at Harkonen's trial demonstrated that he served as the Chief Executive Officer of InterMune, Inc. (a California-based pharmaceutical company) from 1998 until at least June 3, 2003.3 In 2000, InterMune purchased the rights to the drug Actimmune, which at that point in time had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") for "chronic granulomatous disease and severe, malignant osteopetrosis."4 After a small Austrian clinical trial demonstrated that Actimmune might be used to treat another condition, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ("IPF"), InterMune "launched its own, much more ambitious study of Actimmune's efficacy in treating IPF."5 However, when InterMune's Senior Director of Biostatistics received the results of this trial (the "GIPF-001 trial"), "it was immediately apparent that the study had missed its primary endpoint as well as all ten of the secondary endpoints."6 InterMune nonetheless issued a press release (which Harkonen largely controlled) touting the results of the GIPF-001 trial (the "Press Release").7 That Press Release was headlined "InterMune announces Phase III data demonstrating survival benefit of Actimmune in IPF," and stated, among other things, that Actimmune had demonstrated "a significant survival benefit" in certain patient populations.8 Harkonen was subsequently charged with and convicted of one count of wire fraud for making false statements about Actimmune in the Press Release.9 The district court denied Harkonen's post-trial motions, finding, among other things, that "the jury could have concluded that the press release, as a whole, was false or fraudulent."10

The Ninth Circuit's Decision

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit stated that "[t]he First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech . . . so the core constitutional issue in Harkonen's case is whether the facts the jury found establish that the Press Release was fraudulent."11 The Ninth Circuit then concluded that the jury's findings that "the Press Release was misleading, that Harkonen knew it was misleading, and that Harkonen had the specific intent to defraud," were all supported by "sufficient evidence," and therefore affirmed Harkonen's conviction.12 In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit relied upon (among other things) evidence that: (i) "Harkonen himself was 'very apologetic' about the Press Release's misleading nature"; (ii) "Harkonen prevented [InterMune's] clinical personnel from viewing the Press Release prior to its publication"; and (iii) "Harkonen stated that he would 'cut that data and slice it until he got the kinds of results he was looking for.'"13 The Ninth Circuit also specifically rejected Harkonen's argument that he was "engaging in a genuine scientific debate," stating that "genuine debates of any sort are, by definition, not fraudulent."14

The Second Circuit's Caronia Decision

On December 3, 2012 (just three months before Harkonen was decided), the Second Circuit vacated the conviction of Alfred Caronia ("Caronia"), who had been tried and convicted of participating in an unlawful conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce in violation of the FDCA.15 At trial, the government introduced evidence demonstrating that Caronia and a physician hired by Caronia's employer to serve as a "promotional speaker" had made statements to a government cooperator in which they promoted the prescription drug Xyrem for unapproved or "off-label" indications.16 Caronia was subsequently charged with and convicted of participating in an unlawful conspiracy to introduce Xyrem into interstate commerce when Xyrem was "misbranded" within the meaning of the FDCA.17 On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated Caronia's conviction, stating that:

we decline to adopt the government's construction of the FDCA's misbranding provisions to prohibit manufacturer promotion alone as it would unconstitutionally restrict free speech. We construe the misbranding provisions of the FDCA as not prohibiting and criminalizing the truthful off-label promotion of FDA-approved prescription drugs.18

The Second Circuit, however, was careful to limit the scope of its decision, stating that: "we do not hold, of course, that the FDA cannot regulate the marketing of prescription drugs. We conclude simply that the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech promoting the lawful, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug."19

The Current Landscape For Off-Label Promotion

While the Caronia decision provides a powerful defense for both pharmaceutical companies and their employees in misbranding and related cases (including civil False Claims Act matters), the Harkonen decision makes clear that the promotion of approved drugs for off-label uses is only protected by the First Amendment where the promotional statements are truthful. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Harkonen, "the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech."20

Life science companies and their employees should also be aware that the FDA has reportedly stated in recent months that it "'does not believe that the Caronia decision will significantly affect the agency's enforcement of the drug misbranding provisions of the [FDCA].'"21 Thus, it appears that the government intends to construe the Caronia decision as narrowly as possible, and to continue prosecuting life science companies and their employees for off-label promotion.22 While recent statements by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania suggest that the government may focus its future efforts on prosecuting off-label cases involving actual fraud, the government has not ruled out prosecuting life science companies where the promotional statements at issue are truthful.23 We therefore reiterate that life science companies must remain as vigilant as ever in their compliance efforts.

Footnotes

1 See United States v. Harkonen, Nos. 11-10209, -10242, 2013 WL 782354, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2013).

2 The authors have previously written about the Caronia decision and its potential impact on the government's efforts to restrict off-label promotion. See Martin L. Seidel, et al., Second Circuit's Caronia Decision Could Significantly Change Life Science Companies' Exposure for Off-Label Promotion, 25 Health Law. 39 (Feb. 2013).

3 Due to the abbreviated nature of the Ninth Circuit's unpublished opinion in Harkonen, the facts described herein are derived from the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Harkonen's post-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, for acquittal or a new trial. See United States v. Harkonen, No. C 08-00164 MHP, 2010 WL 2985257, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010).

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 Id. at *7.

7 Id. at *9.

8 Id.

9 Id. at *1. Significantly, Harkonen was also charged with one count of felony misbranding under the FDCA, but the jury acquitted him on that charge. Id. at *2.

10 Id. at *10. Prior to trial, the district court had denied Harkonen's motion to dismiss the indictment on First Amendment grounds because "according to the indictment, the speech at issue was not 'First Amendment-protected as pure scientific speech or ideas.'" Id. at *15 (citation omitted).

11 Harkonen, 2013 WL 782354, at *1 (citation omitted).

12 Id. at *2.

13 Id. at **1, 2 (citation omitted). Significantly, the Ninth Circuit noted that Harkonen did not present the evidence that "most firmly supported his case" until sentencing. Id. at *2 n.2. Thus, the court determined that it could not reverse the jury's verdict "based on evidence it never considered." Id.

14 Id. at *3.

15 Caronia, 703 F.3d at 152.

16 Id. at 155-56.

17 Id. at 157-59. As explained in our prior article regarding the Caronia decision, "the Second Circuit noted that while the FDCA does not specifically prohibit off-label promotion, the FDA has taken the position that off-label promotion constitutes 'misbranding.'" 25 Health Law. at 39 n.13 (citing Caronia, 703 F.3d at 154-55).

18 Caronia, 703 F.3d at 168 (emphasis added).

19 Id. at 169. The Second Circuit also stated that: "[o]f course, off-label promotion that is false or misleading is not entitled to First Amendment protection." Id. at 166.

20 2013 WL 782354, at *1. Despite the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of fraud to justify Harkonen's conviction, Harkonen may seek rehearing and/or review by the U.S. Supreme Court on the ground that his statements are protected by the First Amendment under Caronia. The Caronia decision was not issued until after briefing on Harkonen's appeal was completed, so Harkonen did not have the benefit of the Second Circuit's decision in drafting his appellate briefs. Accordingly, life science companies and their employees should closely monitor any further developments in the Harkonen case.

21 See Krista Carver, Caronia Update: Government Does Not Appeal Significant Second Circuit Decision, Inside Medical Devices (Jan. 24, 2013), available at http://www.insidemedicaldevices.com/2013/01/24/caronia-update-government-does-not-appeal-significant-second-circuit-decision/ (quoting statement attributed to the FDA in Alaina Busch, FDA Won't Ask SCOTUS to Review Caronia, Continues Off-Label Enforcement, FDA Week (Jan. 25, 2013), available at https://healthpolicynewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppv&id=2422537&Itemid=0); see also Cameron Ayers, FDA: Government Will Not Challenge Second Circuit Decision on Caronia, Sees No Threat to Enforcement, Thompson's FDA Compliance Expert (Jan. 24, 2013), available at http://prod-admin1.tmg.atex.cniweb.net:8080/preview/www/2.3427/2.3465/1.328148 (reporting that the FDA distributed a two paragraph email on January 23, 2013 in which it stated that it would not seek further review of the Caronia decision).

22 As explained in our prior article, the Caronia decision was "the first decision from a federal circuit court of appeals to directly address the constitutionality of the government's efforts to restrict off-label promotion of prescription drugs." 25 Health Law. at 40. "While Caronia is binding precedent within the Second Circuit, it would not be binding on the other circuit courts of appeals if they are called upon to address the same or similar issues." Id. Thus, the government may attempt "to evade Caronia by bringing all actions seeking to impose criminal or civil liability for misbranding based on off-label promotion in district courts outside of the Second Circuit." Id.

23 See David Sell, Philly U.S. Attorney: Caronia Court Decision Won't Impact Pharma Prosecutions (Locally, For Now), Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 12, 2013, available at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillypharma/Philly-US-Attorney-says-court-decision-wont-impact-drug-prosecutions-for-now.html (reporting that the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently stated that following Caronia, "his prosecutors will continue to focus on finding evidence [of] misbranding, which remains illegal, and the more commonly understood term – lying").

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions