On April 17, 2026, Patterson Belknap secured a significant victory for our clients, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“J&J”), when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act suit filed by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”).  

The dispute concerned a retrospective scientific study sponsored by J&J that compared the real-world efficacy of both companies’ prostate cancer medications, concluding that J&J’s ERLEADA was associated with a reduction in overall risk of death approximately 50% greater than Bayer’s NUBEQA. Bayer alleged that the study was methodologically flawed, and that J&J’s publication of the study results therefore constituted “false advertising.” The statements at issue included a presentation given by the study authors at a medical conference following peer review, a set of slides summarizing the study, and a press release detailing the study’s results.

On February 23, 2026, Bayer filed its complaint and simultaneously sought a preliminary injunction on an expedited timeline. Just 11 days later, Patterson Belknap filed a robust opposition to Bayer’s motion, accompanied by 11 witness declarations (four from well-qualified experts). On March 16 and 17, 2026, the Court held a two-day hearing on the motion, where both parties’ witnesses testified live. 

Based on this detailed preliminary record, the Court found that J&J’s study employed “reliable” and “widely-accepted” scientific methods and data sources—and that this was “not a particularly close call.” The Court further found that J&J’s public communications “accurately represent the study’s conclusions” and “adequately disclose the study’s methodologies and their attendant limitations.” Accordingly, the Court denied Bayer’s requested preliminary injunction in its entirety, finding no likelihood of success on its claims.

The decision is a victory for scientific discourse and patient care, supporting the open and accurate sharing of evidence-based information with the medical community.

To read press from Law360 and Bloomberg Law, please click here and here.

To read the Court’s opinion, please click here.