News & Analysis as of

Antitrust Litigation Antitrust Violations Prescription Drugs

Haug Partners LLP

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc.: Jury Finds Rebate Offers on Bundled Drugs in Exchange for Exclusive Formulary...

Haug Partners LLP on

On May 15, 2025, a federal jury in Delaware district court determined that Defendant Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) violated antitrust and tort laws, and awarded $406.8 million in damages to Plaintiff Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc....more

Rivkin Radler LLP

Cigna Sues Bristol Myers Squibb Alleging Scheme to Block Generic Drug

Rivkin Radler LLP on

Cigna filed a lawsuit on June 24 in Manhattan federal court accusing Bristol Myers Squibb of unlawfully blocking generic versions of its blood cancer drug, Pomalyst, from entering the market. The suit also names Celgene, a...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

States Seeking Remedies for the Rising Costs of Prescription Drugs

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

As expected, the lawsuits have commenced following the enactment of the Arkansas legislation prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers (PBM’s) from owning or operating actual pharmacies within the state. Michigan has filed its...more

Kerr Russell

Michigan AG Alleges Anticompetitive Agreement Between Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Kerr Russell on

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Express Scripts Inc. and Prime Therapeutics LLC, two pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Monday, April 28, 2025....more

A&O Shearman

District Court Of Connecticut Largely Denies Generic Drug Manufacturers’ “Unusual” Dismissal Motion Targeting Specific Types Of...

A&O Shearman on

On November 12, 2024, Judge Michael P. Shea of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part a joint motion to dismiss submitted by thirty-six defendant drug manufacturers...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Attorneys Collect $23.3M Payday in EDVA Antitrust Settlement

Troutman Pepper Locke on

On October 18, Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the Eastern District of Virginia approved a $70 million settlement in an antitrust case, with more than $23.3 million awarded to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. This case helpfully...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Jury Finds Gilead and Teva Did Not Engage in an Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay Scheme for HIV Drugs

On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

2019 Pharmaceutical Antitrust Round-Up: A Year in Pay for Delay [Part 2]

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Classes Certified in In re Suboxone “Product-Hopping” Case

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

Troutman Pepper Locke

Third Circuit Provides Manufacturers With Roadmap to Avoid Class Antitrust Claims Brought by Direct Purchasers

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The Third Circuit recently held in In re Remicade (Direct Purchaser) Antitrust Litigation that a direct purchaser’s antitrust suit alleging overpayment for a drug purchased pursuant to a distribution agreement with a...more

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation – January 2019 Hearing Session Preview

The next hearing session of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) is scheduled for January 31, 2019 in Miami, Florida. Six matters are set for oral argument to consider motions to transfer each...more

Robinson+Cole Class Actions Insider

Class Certification Improper Where 10% of Class Members Uninjured, Explains the First Circuit

The First Circuit recently addressed an issue of broad significance in class action law. It explained how a class cannot be certified when there are more than a small number of uninjured class members, and how a defendant...more

Akerman LLP - Health Law Rx

Pharmacies Accuse Drug Maker of Anticompetitive Contracting to Restrict Biosimilar Market

Walgreens and Kroger have filed an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accusing Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of engaging in anticompetitive conduct designed to stymie the...more

A&O Shearman

Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Year in Review

A&O Shearman on

This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Sovereign Immunity for State Plaintiffs in Antitrust Class Actions?

The Third Circuit recently denied a petition for rehearing en banc a panel’s earlier decision in the In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation. In that case, the panel decision addressed the degree to which class settlements can...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

In a Groundbreaking Decision, Third Circuit Provides Framework for Evaluating Numerosity

Pierce Atwood LLP on

One of the least disputed elements of class certification is Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity, and so there is relatively little analysis from the courts about it. Last month, however, a divided panel of the Third Circuit provided a...more

Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity

Carlton Fields on

The Third Circuit recently vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into agreements...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

District Court Narrowly Defines the Relevant Market in Post-Actavis Pay-For-Delay Suit

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

18 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide