A U.S. district court ruled against specialty pharmaceutical company Santarus Inc in its patent suit against Par Pharmaceuticals, sending Santarus shares tumbling 48 percent after the bell.

The suit filed by Santarus and co-plaintiff University of Missouri relates to Par's application to market a generic version of Santarus' heartburn drug, Zegerid.

The court ruled that the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness. It also concluded that certain asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.

The case is Santarus Inc et al v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware. No. 07-551.

The three-judge panel Tuesday ordered the secretary of state to accept the group's petition seeking to recall Sen. Robert Menendez. That allows the tea party activists to begin collecting the 1.3 million voter signatures they need to get a recall on the ballot.

The court set aside the larger question of whether voters have a constitutional right to recall a federal lawmaker.

New Jersey is among 18 states that allow recalls of statewide elected officials. There is no right to recall congressmen and senators under the U.S. Constitution.

The court says it would take up that question if the petition drive succeeds.

Lawyers for Merck & Co. told the Supreme Court Monday that investors waited too late and didn't do all of the necessary investigations to sue the drug maker over whether it properly warned about the risks of its blockbuster painkiller Vioxx.

Whether the high court agrees with the drug maker will help clarify the legal standards for determining exactly when the clock starts running for the two-year window to sue a company accused of defrauding investors.

Merck wants the high court to overturn a decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that will let proceed a class-action securities lawsuit related to the tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value lost overnight after Merck pulled Vioxx off the market.

The Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based company withdrew the drug from the market on Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled the risks of heart attack, stroke and death.

Investors had accused Merck of providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. After a widely publicized study comparing Vioxx to naproxen, another pain reliever, found about five times more heart attacks in the patient group taking Vioxx, Merck officials argued repeatedly that was because naproxen protected the heart.

Hwang, once a scientist with rock-star like status in South Korea for his research that brought the country to the forefront of stem cell studies, is facing trial on charges of fraud, misusing 2.8 billion won ($2.25 million) in state funds and violating bioethics laws.

Prosecutors said Hwang brought shame to the country and harm to scientific research in South Korea.

"The disappointment felt by the (Korean) people is enormous," one of the team of prosecutors told the court.

Hwang, who has apologized for fraud in his team's work, has denied any wrongdoing and said he was duped by junior researchers into believing the landmark results

Lee Bong-gu, a lawyer for Hwang, said: "These people, including the prosecutors are trying to tear apart Hwang's precious scientific evidence."

The U.S. Supreme Court said yesterday that it would hear an appeal by Merck & Co. Inc. seeking to block a shareholders' lawsuit over its withdrawn pain reliever Vioxx.

A federal appeals court ruling in Philadelphia reinstated the class-action securities lawsuit in 2008 after a U.S. district judge in New Jersey dismissed it on grounds that the claims had been filed too late under statutes of limitations.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments during its term that begins in October.

Merck, which employs about 12,000 people in the Philadelphia area, contends that investors waited more than two years to sue after the first warnings that Vioxx might be unsafe.

The investors' suit is unrelated to the $4.85 billion Merck agreed to pay in November 2007 to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their survivors over Vioxx.

To date, more than 48,000 plaintiffs have filed claims relating to injuries or economic loss under the settlement.

Brian McNamee, who told federal investigators that Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs, contends the pitcher defamed him after McNamee spoke to investigators for former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. The summons, filed in Queens Supreme Court last week, preserves McNamee's right to sue, Richard Emery, a lawyer for McNamee, said Tuesday.

Clemens filed his own defamation suit against McNamee in January after the trainer said in the Mitchell Report that he regularly injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone. Clemens later told a congressional committee under oath he had never taken steroids.

In the federal case in Texas, McNamee's attorneys say the trainer was forced to talk to investigators under threat of prosecution, rendering him immune from any defamation lawsuit. A federal prosecutor backed McNamee's claim, but a judge has yet to rule on his request to toss the case.

The Justice Department's Civil Division notified Merck in a Sept. 10 letter that the department is investigating whether the drugmakers' promotion of Vytorin resulted in false claims to federal health care programs, Merck noted in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission late Monday. If so, federal health programs could seek to recover money they have spent on the drug.

A group of 35 state attorneys general are jointly investigating whether the partners violated state consumer protection laws in their marketing of Vytorin, Merck reported.

And, since January, Merck has been served with or become aware of about 140 civil class-action lawsuits alleging consumer fraud claims in connection with two cholesterol drugs sold and promoted by the partners' joint venture. Some lawsuits allege personal injuries or seek medical monitoring for people who used the drugs, the filing said.

"We take this matter very seriously," Skip Irvine, a spokesman for the joint venture, said Tuesday. "We're cooperating with the request for information that the Justice Department is seeking."

Merck also said in the SEC filing that it is cooperating with the other investigators.

Vytorin and one of its components, Zetia, have been blockbusters in the lucrative cholesterol market, with a combined $5.2 billion in 2007 revenue. But repeated bad news about the drugs this year has cut revenue by about 15 percent since last fall — they brought in only a combined $1.1 billion in the third quarter — contributing to new rounds of layoffs at both Merck and Schering-Plough.

In January, under pressure from congressional investigators, the companies released results of a long-delayed study showing that pricey Vytorin was no better at reducing plaque buildup than its second component, a generic cholesterol drug called Zocor costing about one-third as much.

That led to the investigations by congressional committees as to whether the companies deliberately delayed releasing the study's results to boost sales of Vytorin and Zetia, a charge the companies have denied.

The investigations are being conducted by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. They have sought witness interviews, documents and information related to the companies' promotion of Vytorin, the delayed release of results on the patient study, called ENHANCE, and stock sales by officers of the companies.

The Oversight and Investigations subcommittee also made requests on Aug. 21 and Sept. 2 for documents and information related to another patient study, called SEAS, that linked Vytorin to a possible increased risk of various cancers and showed it didn't prevent deterioration, surgery or death in patients with diseased heart valves, as the companies had hoped.

"In a normal environment, this would not be a big deal," analyst Steve Brozak of WBB Securities said of the Justice Department investigation. But pharmaceutical companies are getting lots of scrutiny these days, he said, and all the new litigation could distract the companies from their core business.

"It doesn't mean anything today, but it can have a compounding effect that could mean something tomorrow," he said.

Brozak said all the lawsuits by the class-action attorneys and state attorneys general are "a standard piling-on," but the class-action lawyers are familiar with Merck's successful defense strategy from litigation over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and are not likely to "make the same mistakes as they did with Vioxx," he said.

Merck shares closed up almost 4 percent at $31.13, and Schering-Plough shares finished the day up almost 7 percent at $15.50 on a generally positive day on Wall Street.