Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc. v. Panatrax Inc

Filing 153

JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, Lincoln Diagnostics, Inc. against Defendant, Panatrex Inc. See judgment. (SLJ, ilcd)

AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

Wednesday, 16 September, 2009 03:17:36 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

E-FILED

United States District Court
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

LINCOLN DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. PANATREX INC., Defendant. Case Number: 07-2077

DECISION BY THE COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. This court hereby orders that Defendant, and any entity acting on Defendant's behalf, is permanently enjoined from making any of the following claims in any form of advertising, including in package inserts in Defendant's products: (1) that its products have approval or qualification by the FDA; (2) that the price for Defendant's Quanti-TestŪ system is 50-70% less than Defendant's major competitor; (3) that the use of Defendant's products, due to a "unique patented design[,]" permit excess allergen to be wiped out and flow back to the well permitting savings in the cost of allergens, and use of Defendant's products may save about 50% of the user's cost; (4) that the Quick-TestŪ applicator can limit the puncture depth within 0.3-0.4 mm. thereby preventing false positive results and being more accurate; (5) that, to ensure quality control, the prong of each Quanti-TestŪ device is checked by a magnifier glass prior to packaging; (6) that false positive results can be easily avoided by use of Defendant's products; (7) that Defendant possesses a clinical study to prove that Defendant's products are more accurate and that Defendant's products are subject to low false negative results by use of the Carr study; (8) that Defendant's products are "the" and/or "a" most popular skin test device in the world; (9) that use of Defendant's products can result in a reduced cost without any reduction in efficacy; (10) that Defendant's products include a cap sealing structure which protects allergens from contamination; and (11) that Defendant's products provide protection not offered by competitive products in avoiding the introduction of unwanted amounts of 1000X allergens into a patient's dermis layer to avoid false positive results.

AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case (10) This case is terminated.

ENTER this 16th day of September, 2009.

s/Pamela E. Robinson _______________________________ PAMELA E. ROBINSON, CLERK s/S. Johnson _______________________________ BY: DEPUTY CLERK