Opinion ID: 3217049
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Multi-Source Designation

Text: Ranbaxy’s second ground for liability is that the MedKnowledge database falsely represents that Absorica is a multi-source drug despite the fact that, according to Ranbaxy’s expert, “multi-source” is a pharmaceutical term of art understood in the industry to mean that a drug has therapeutic equivalents. Although Ranbaxy’s expert is unable to cite any treatise, journal, or other authority for this contention, we must assume at summary judgment that his characterization of the term is accurate. However, we need not ignore the plain reality that “multi-source” is susceptible to multiple meanings, as evidenced by the Orange Book’s use of the term, which is consistent with the definition employed by FDB in the 18 Case: 15-12996 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 19 of 20 MedKnowledge documentation.4 Ranbaxy argues that where a statement is susceptible to multiple meanings, a jury or other finder of fact must decide whether the statement was understood in a defamatory sense. See Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 731 So. 2d 702, 705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999). But that is not the case where, as here, the publisher has offered clear and unambiguous guidance as to how the term should be understood. FDB did not leave interpretation of the term “multi-source” to the discretion of the reader, but rather provided a detailed explanation of how the term is employed in the MedKnowledge database. Ranbaxy protests again that mere “disclaimers” do not absolve FDB from liability. As set forth above, the explanations in the MedKnowledge documentation are not disclaimers; they are guides for understanding the fields of data that FDB publishes and are a necessary reference for all of FDB’s customers. In particular, the data field indicating whether a drug is multi-source or single source contains only a “1” or a “2”; users have to reference the documentation to understand that “1” corresponds to multi-source and “2” corresponds to single source.5 4 Ranbaxy’s expert admitted that “the FDA did not consider Absorica a single-source product, at least in how they used the terms.” App. 74-13 at 31. 5 Ranbaxy suggests that users could learn the meaning of the MedKnowledge codes orally from more experienced users without referencing the user documentation. Again, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we find it implausible that FDB’s customers, who are responsible for developing software for dispensing medication to patients, would eschew the clear explanations provided in the MedKnowledge documentation in favor of word-of-mouth explanations by other users. 19 Case: 15-12996 Date Filed: 06/24/2016 Page: 20 of 20 Moreover, not only does FDB indicate in a separate field that Absorica has no therapeutic equivalents, it also indicates in another field that Absorica is single source pursuant to the definition suggested by Ranbaxy’s expert. Any reasonable reader viewing the database in context would understand that multi-source and single source are susceptible to different interpretations, and that reference to the user documentation was necessary to understand the meaning employed by each field.