Date: 12-04-2009

Case Style: PBM Products v. Mead Johnson

Case Number: 09cv269

Judge: James R. Spencer

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Fairfax County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert F. Redmond and Ryan F. Furgunson, Williams Mullen, P.C., R1chmond, Virginia

Terrence Patrick Canade and Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddel, Chicago, Illinois

David Gregory Greene, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddel, New York, New York

Jeremy Andrew Cohen, Harold Paul Weinberger and Jonathan Mark Wagner, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, L.L.P., New York, New York

Ryan Fitzgerald Furgurson, Williams Mullen, Richmond, Virginia

Tobias Benjamin Jacoby, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, L.L.P., New York, New York

Defendant's Attorney: Hugh McCoy Fain, Maurice Francis Mullins and Edward Everett Bagnell, Jr., Spotts Fain, P.C., Richmond, Virginia

Scott Mitchell Flicker, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, L.L.P., Washington, DC

Candice Stacey McPhillips, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, L.L.P., Washington, DC

Description: PBM Products sued Mead Johnson on a false advertising theory relating to the business rivals competing baby formula products. Plaintiff claimed that defendant falsely claimed that PBM's baby formula was not as good as Enfamil helping infants develop their brains and eyes.

PBM claimed that Mead Johnson consciously decided that its marketing should be more aggressive and risky as it witnessed a decrease in its sales and an increase in store brand sales. … The 2008 Mailer and its attack on store brands was the result of that marketing decision.

Mead Johnson denied wrongdoing.

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $13.5 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: