Power Alley: As We Expected, The Supremes Have Let Stand The Immunization From Antitrust Liability, For Merck's Mumps Vaccines...

In general -- under controlling US law and regulations -- there are very few avenues to sue makers of effective, life saving vaccines.

That was a considered Congressional policy decision, over a half century ago -- to encourage the provision of what are very low margin, but vital, vaccines to school children nationwide. [Rahway chose to withdraw this single-dose version of the vaccine in 2022 (in favor of a three-way combo vaccine -- which more economically includes Mumps / Measles / Rubella) -- but we've been following various versions of this vaccine litigation since early 2010.]

Here is Reuters' prior piece on that litigation. This morning, the US Supreme Court dismissed (at page 2) an attempt to revive the claims barred by the so-called Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. [Our prior backgrounder from a year ago, is here.]

The latest -- then, from Reuters, this morning:

. . .The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by a group of physicians and healthcare providers to revive their antitrust lawsuit accusing drugmaker Merck of misleading federal regulators to maintain a decades-long monopoly over the mumps vaccine market.

The justices turned away an appeal by the plaintiffs of a lower court's decision to throw out the lawsuit on the basis that the drugmaker was protected under a legal doctrine that immunizes companies from antitrust claims based on actions aimed at swaying government decision-making. . . .

Now you know. Onward, grinning. Ever grinning. I will be in Music City At Union Station from the evening before, through the evening after, your 46^th. . . just FYI. Could buy you a glass of wine at the bar. . . smile.

नमस्ते