“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.

Nonetheless, immediately following the at-risk launch of its generic version of HETLIOZ®, Teva began publishing materially false and misleading marketing material that advertises and promotes its generic tasimelteon for uses beyond the ...

Nonetheless, Teva is promoting its ANDA product as an anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic.