SALT LAKE CITY—An appeals court has extended the deadline Utah state attorneys have to reply in a lawsuit that three major contact lens manufacturers have filed against a Utah law that prevents contact lens manufacturers from establishing minimum prices on certain products.

On Friday, July 10, 2015, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver granted a request from the Utah Attorney General’s office to extend the deadline state attorneys have to respond in a case brought against the state’s Contact Lens Consumer Protection Act by Alcon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care and Bausch + Lomb. With the deadline extended by six days, Utah state attorneys now have until tomorrow to file their response.

The contested law prevents contact lens manufacturers from requiring all contact lens distributors to adhere to Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPP) that establish minimum retail prices. While the state of Utah defends the law, the contact lens manufacturers contend that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and opposes U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The contact lens manufacturers are appealing a decision from U.S. District Judge Dee Benson for the District of Utah, who ruled May 11, 2015, that the Utah law is a legal antitrust measure.

Originally scheduled to go into effect in Utah on May 12, 2015, the law had previously been blocked since May 14, 2015, by an injunction by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in response to a motion filed by contact lens manufacturers Alcon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care and Bausch + Lomb. However, the court vacated that injunction on Friday, June 12, 2015, allowing the new law to go into effect while the appeals process continues, stating that the three contact lens manufacturers “have not satisfied the requirements necessary for an injunction.”

New briefs in the case are due later this month. The State of Utah’s response brief shall be filed on or before July 16, 2015, and all reply briefs shall be filed on or before July 23, 2015. While VMail reached out to all the participants in this case, there were no new comments in addition to those previously provided for earlier VMail articles.