Abbott Laboratories v. Johnson

Order Our initial opinion, issued on July 23, vacated the denial of preliminary relief and ordered the district Judge "to
promptly commence a full trial on the merits." Slip op. 1. Later we defined prompt as "within 60 days." Slip op. 30. We anticipated
that trial was just around the corner in part because the hearing concerning preliminary relief, which lasted ten days, showed
that both sides were well prepared, and in part because at oral argument both sides represented that they would be ready for
trial soon. Only Mead Johnson suggested a need to gather additional information, and the study that Mead was conducting has
been completed. In case something held up the trial, we stated, the district Judge must "fashion preliminary relief . . . in accordance with
this opinion." Slip op. 29. The opinion had observed that preliminary relief should take an intermediate form -- less than
the exclusion of Ricelyte (registered) from the market (which Abbott Laboratories had demanded) but more than nothing. Exclusion,
we thought, was excessive, because it would restore Abbott's monopoly position, to the detriment of consumers. We did not
require the district court to bar the use of the name Ricelyte (registered). Although the name misleads when used in connection
with the ad campaign showing grains of whole rice falling into solution, it is not false: Mead's electrolyte is indeed derived,
albeit remotely, from rice.