From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Upjohn Company v. Riahom Corporation
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
641 F. Supp. 1209 (1986)
Facts
The Upjohn Company (Upjohn) (plaintiff) discovered that one of its patented compounds, minoxidil, caused hair growth. Upjohn began marketing minoxidil as Regaine and sought FDA approval, which was required for a hair-growth drug. Upjohn spent over $100 million in research and development of Regaine. In Italy, Kemyos Bio Medical Research (Kemyos) later filed patent applications for a minoxidil compound called Rivixil after minimal clinical testing. No patent was issued. Riahom Corporation (defendant) bought Rivixil from Kemyos, shipped it to New York, and had a third party package it for sale. Riahom marketed Rivixil as a cosmetic to salons at a $150 price point. Riahom did not seek FDA approval and did not conduct any safety or efficacy testing. Riahom’s advertisements claimed Rivixil contained a clinically tested patented compound and referred to news coverage of Regaine. Riahom claimed that Rivixil grew hair. Upjohn sued Riahom for patent infringement and unfair competition, seeking a preliminary injunction. Riahom argued that Rivixil did not actually induce hair growth but merely promoted a fuller, thicker head of hair. After denying a preliminary injunction based on patent infringement, the court considered whether to grant a preliminary injunction due to unfair competition.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
