In a recent lawsuit, the State of Ohio has accused certain pharmaceutical benefit managers, or “PBMs,” of violating state antitrust laws. According to the complaint, the PBMs have leveraged their market dominance to enrich...more
Yesterday we discussed 2019’s most significant developments in challenges to reverse-payment settlements. Today we continue our analysis of recent trends in pharmaceutical antitrust actions with a discussion of cases...more
Recently, Judge Goldberg in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified two classes of plaintiffs asserting antitrust claims based on alleged “product hopping” by the manufacturer of branded tablets treating opioid...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more
8/25/2016
/ Anti-Competitive ,
Antitrust Litigation ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
FTC v Actavis ,
Generic Drugs ,
Patents ,
Pay-For-Delay ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Reverse Payments ,
Rule-of-Reason Analysis
As we have previously reported, generic drug manufacturers have come under scrutiny from state and federal regulators for recent generic drug price hikes. These investigations have expanded to include Turing Pharmaceuticals...more