The case was U.S. v. Caronia. Here is the intro to a 2014 article discussing the case, and FDA's position following the decision:
US v. Caronia, One Year Later: FDA’s Position on Off-Label Promotion Remains the Same, But Changes are Looming
The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) recently presented "US v. Caronia, One Year Later: The First Amendment and Federal Oversight of Off-Label Drug and Device 'Promotion.'" When US v. Caronia came out in December 2012, we wrote that many stakeholders believed it would usher in greater First Amendment freedom with regards to off-label promotions. The government disagreed. Soon after the Caronia opinion, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that the ruling would not affect the agency's enforcement. Coleen Klasmeier of Sidley Austin LLP, Jonathan Diesenhaus of Hogan Lovells US LLP, and Geoffrey Levitt of Pfizer, Inc., shared their beliefs that the FDA's position is not sustainable. The panel brought their unique backgrounds to color the discussion of why the FDA's current off-label scheme is misdirected and ripe for a change.
As the article explains, the FDA and DOJ realize their mistake in Caronia (going after only the rep and only on speech) and won't make the same mistake again. Note the importance of the speech being unarguably true. Were FDA to prosecute the executives of a company where the speech was true but the executives were accused of "plus" conduct, it would be interesting to see how the SCOTUS would rule.
What we don't know is how the FDA deals with Caronia (note, FDA elected not to appeal to SCOTUS) in negotiations with manufacturers. I.e., whether Caronia actually gives manufacturers any leverage.
http://www.policymed.com/2014/02/us-v-caronia-one-year-later-fdas-position-on-off-label-promotion-remains-the-same-but-changes-are-looming.html