CHICAGO (Legal Newsline) – Pending in Chicago federal court is a drug company's frank response to a doctor who is suing over the marketing of Sensum+.
Innovus Pharmaceuticals Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by James L. Yeager, Ph.D. and Midwest Research Laboratories over allegations of right to publicity and false light regarding the marketing of the product.
Sensum+ is a cream that can be applied to the penis with the goal of an "increase of sensation," the product's website says.
"Plaintiffs’ allegations don’t even make sense. Yeager alleges he suffered 'reputational harm' as a result of the unidentified 'publications,' while at the same time alleging that these publications described his development of the products as miraculous, providing a solution for which men had been begging for years, and providing life changing improvements to men," says the motion, filed in October..
In the 21-page motion, Innovus argues that Yeager “fails to allege facts that establish this court has personal jurisdiction” in this matter.
Innovus also says that Yeager falls short in alleging facts that would be sufficient to warrant action by the court. Finally, Innovus argues that Yeager’s claims of publicity lie outside the statute of limitations under the law, and thus are not applicable.
The plaintiffs filed their original complaint on Jan. 19, 2018. Yeager alleged that Innovus used his identity while marketing Sensum+ without his authorization. This allegedly included using his name and image in advertising for Sesnum+, as well as on the company’s website.
The motion states that the plaintiffs developed CircumSerum and Sensum+ products, sold them and the right to market them to Centric Research Institute, and that the products and the right to market them were sold to Innovus.
Yeager also claims that using his likeness and identity in the advertisements was a violation of his right to publicity under Illinois law. Yet, Innovus argues in its motion that the “the act triggering the statute of limitations occurred more than one year before” Yeager submitted his suit.
Innovus notes that he says he experienced “reputational harm” because his image and identity were in marketing materials. Yet, at the same time, it alleges that he was proud of the products described in the advertising and that they had provided a “solution for which men had been begging for years.”
The company also argues in its motion that Yeager seeks injunctive relief under the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act but failed “to establish any risk of future injury,” and that harm to his reputation is not enough to establish a call for action.