the “channels of trade and marketing efforts are directed to a very educated and highly sophisticated group.” Appellees’ Br. at 30. Andrx also claims that this factor favors it “because the products are not in direct competition” since each should be prescribed under somewhat different circumstances. Id. The problem with Andrx’s approach is that neither customer sophistication nor the relationship between the goods is relevant to determining whether the goods are “marketed through the same channels and advertised through the same media.” Lapp, 721 F.2d at 463. There are other Lapp factors that take those issues into account. “[W]e [do] not discount the strength of plaintiffs case in one area because of weakness in another; we weight ] each factor separately.” Fisons, 30 F.3d at 476 (<HOLDING>). We find that the district court clearly erred
holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses holding district court erred in failing to count the similarities in channels of trade and target audience for plaintiff due to district courts view that other lapp factors weighed against plaintiff holding that district court erred in failing to consider evidence of secondary considerations holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination