On March 28, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (“the agencies”) jointly submitted a Statement of Interest on behalf of the United States in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars...more
Two of the Department of Justice’s labor-market criminal antitrust prosecutions have seen interesting recent developments. (See our previous coverage of this prosecution trend, reported on: Feb. 9th; May 2nd; Sept. 22nd; and...more
The DOJ’s efforts to prosecute alleged wage-fixing and employee non-solicitation agreements have continued to develop over the last few months. Most notably, the DOJ nearly secured its first criminal conviction on a no-poach...more
Missouri resident Elliot Conrad Dale recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), claiming GSK employed a “device hopping” scheme to ensure uninterrupted patent and regulatory protection for its...more
Last month, the first two trials arising from the DOJ’s recent push to criminally prosecute wage-fixing and employee non-solicitation agreements both ended in acquittals on the antitrust charges. In United States v. Jindal,...more
Two weeks ago, the District of Colorado denied defendants’ motion to dismiss in a criminal case targeting agreements between competitors not to solicit (or “poach”) each other’s employees. United States v. DaVita Inc. et...more
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: the FTC is suing pharmaceutical manufacturers Endo and Impax over an alleged “reverse payment” agreement to reduce competition in the market for Opana ER, an oxymorphone extended...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
European competition authorities announced this week an investigation into Aspen Pharmacare’s recent price hikes of five cancer drugs. The European Commission said in a press release that it had “information indicating that...more
5/22/2017
/ Antitrust Provisions ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Competition Authorities ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Drug Pricing ,
EU ,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ,
Generic Drugs ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
South Africa
Last Monday Sanofi brought an antitrust suit against Mylan, alleging that Mylan engaged in illegal conduct to suppress competition in the epinephrine auto-injector (“EAI”) market, which is dominated by Mylan’s billion-dollar...more
It has been over three years since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision. Since then, numerous putative class actions alleging harm to competition as a result of “reverse-payment” settlements have flooded the courts. The...more
11/10/2016
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Actavis Inc. ,
Anti-Competitive ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Appeals ,
AstraZeneca ,
Class Action ,
Exclusivity ,
Generic Drugs ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Nexium ,
Patents ,
Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements ,
Summary Judgment ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
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
Direct and indirect purchasers of Nexium recently appealed District of Massachusetts Judge William Young’s denial of a request for a new trial in In re: Nexium to the First Circuit. As we previously reported, In re: Nexium...more
This week, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in the Woodman’s Food Market v. Clorox Co. appeal. As members of our team have previously reported, this case concerns whether a plaintiff can state a claim under Section 2(e) of...more
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
AlarMax Distributors Inc. may pursue price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) against Honeywell International Inc., a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled last week. Fire and security product distributor...more