Anti-Competitive, Prescription Drugs, Antitrust Litigation

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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on 7/6/2023

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

Regeneron Files Antitrust Lawsuit Accusing Amgen of Engaging in a Persistent Exclusionary Campaign to Deny Patients Access to...

Goodwin on 6/3/2022

Late last week, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed an antitrust complaint against Amgen Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Regeneron alleges that “Amgen is engaged in a persistent exclusionary...more

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

Troutman Pepper on 9/19/2019

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

Federal District Court finds brand-name manufacturer’s alleged regulatory delay tactics a valid theory of attempted monopolization

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 1/10/2017

In a recent decision denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed the manufacturer of a generic version of Suboxone to proceed upon an interesting theory...more

Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity

Carlton Fields on 9/29/2016

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

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 8/25/2016

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