“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

A claim is plausible on its face when the complaint contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

To state a claim for false advertising under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the complaint must plausibly plead (1) that the defendant has made false or misleading statements as to his own product [or another’s]; (2) that there is actual deception or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) that the deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) that the advertised goods traveled in interstate commerce; and (5) that there is a likelihood of injury to the plaintiff in terms of declining sales, loss of good will, etc. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharm. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 590 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharm. Co. v. Rhone– Poulenc Rorer Pharms., Inc., 19 F.3d 125, 129 (3d Cir.1994)) (alteration in original).

The allegations, taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, plausibly plead at least one false or misleading statement.

The Court also rejects Defendant’s argument that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege materiality and/or a tendency to deceive.

The consent judgment included the sentence, “[t]his District Court retains jurisdiction to enforce or supervise performance under this Consent Judgment and the Settlement Agreement.” (Id.) In 2024, Teva sued Plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey, alleging antitrust violations, because Plaintiffs entered into exclusive supply agreements with suppliers of the active ingredient in Plaintiffs’ drug Vascepa between 2010 and 2017—rendering it difficult for Teva to source enough active ingredient to launch a generic version of Plaintiff’s drug Vascepa.

To overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, the parties must make a particularized showing as to why these exhibits and portions of their briefs should be sealed and provide compelling reasons, supported by specific factual arguments, for their requests.

Plaintiffs reply there is no dispute that the Court has the power to substantively rule on the Motion, there is nothing unusual about enforcing a settlement agreement six years later, and it would be more efficient to resolve the Motion on its merits because a resolution in their favor would end the litigation in New Jersey and only requires the Court to resolve the legal issue of how to interpret the settlement agreement.

Teva asks the Court to exercise this discretion and suggests its decision should be guided by “notions of judicial economy and convenience of the parties.” (ECF No. 429 at 8 (quoting Danner v. Himmelfarb, 858 F.2d 515, 523 (9th Cir.

Indeed, the Court never anticipated cutting off putative antitrust liability based on factual allegations that were not before it when it agreed to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement indefinitely, at their request.