Florida et al. v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 1:08-cv-00155-SLR (D.Del. 2007)

States alleged Abbott Laboratories; Fournier
Industrie Et Sante and Laboratoires Fournier, S.A., blocked competition from less expensive
generics by continuously making minor changes in the formulations of TriCor to prevent therapeutically equivalent generic substitutions. The states alleged that the product switches helped thwart generic competition, allowing the companies to charge monopoly prices for TriCor.
The lawsuit also allegd the companies used patents, which they obtained by deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office and improperly enforced and brought a series of patent infringement lawsuits against two generic companies. According to the complaint, Abbott and Fournier filed at least ten lawsuits against two generic companies who were attempting to obtain FDA approval for their generic versions of TriCor. Abbott and Fournier eventually lost or dismissed all of the lawsuits. As a result of the product switches and patent litigation, Abbott and Fournier have successfully thwarted generic competition and denied consumers and state agencies the choice of a lower priced therapeutically equivalent generic.
The states settled their claims for $22.5 milion, which covered governmental purchases, as well as injunctive relief to prevent “product hopping” by the defendants in the future.

Read More →

Arizona v. Arizona Hospital and Healthcrae Association

Arizona and USDOJ alleged that hospital trade association fixed the price of nursing services from temporary nursing agencies as participaitng hospitals, which comprised 80 percent of hospital beds in Phoenix and Tucson. Inunctive relief prohibiting conduct and implementing compliance program.

Read More →

State of Colorado et al v. Warner Chilcott, 1:05-cv-02182 (D.D.C.2005)

34 states filed suit alleging that Warner Chilcott entered into an illegal agreement with Barr Pharmaceuticals to raise the prices of Ovcon, an oral contraceptive. The lawsuit alleged that after Barr Pharmaceuticals publicly announced that it planned to have a generic version of Ovcon on the market by the end of the year, Warner Chilcott paid Barr Pharmaceuticals $1 million for an agreement designed to prevent Barr’s generic product from coming to market. Under the terms of the alleged agreement, once Barr received FDA approval to market generic Ovcon, Warner Chilcott had 90 days to pay Barr $19 million, after which Barr would refuse to bring the cheaper generic version to the market. The lawsuit alleged that as a result of the agreement, Warner Chilcott paid Barr a total of $20 million to keep it from marketing its generic version of Ovcon. In additon to a payment of $5.5 million, the settlement prohibits Warner Chilcott, for ten years, from entering into any agreement that would have the effect of limiting the research, development, manufacture, or sale of a generic alternative to one of its drugs. Furthermore, Warner Chilcott must provide the states notice of certain agreements it has entered into with generic manufacturers, and must continue to make its records available to the states for inspection to determine whether the company is complying with the terms of the agreement.

Read More →

California v. Infineon Technologies

33 Plaintiff States generally alleged a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
market for dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), carried out by numerous manufacturer defendants. Samsung an
another company, Winbond, reached settlement for $113 million in 2007.. States and private parties settled with the remaining defendants for $173 million and injunctive relief.

Read More →

New York v. Tele-Communications Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1993 WL 527984 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1993), 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70, 404

Defendant cable system operators, subsidiaries and a satellite cable supplier formed a monopoly in restraint of trade in the delivery of multichannel subscription television programming.

Read More →

In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (Augmentin)

States alleged that GlaxoSmithKline fraudulently obtained patent protection for Augmentin and then delayed generic entry through sham patent litigation. Through this conduct, GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully maintained its monopoly over Augmentin. A $3.5 million multistate settlement for state proprietary claims was entered into by the participating states and GlaxoSmithKline.

Read More →

In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation

States sued manufacturer of antidepressant Relafen, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled the state proprietary claims for $10 million.

Read More →

Maryland v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 2:06-cv-01298-JP (E.D.Pa Mar. 27, 2006)

States sued manufacturer of antitdepressant Paxil, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled for $14 million.

Read More →

Connecticut v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation), MDL No. 1290 (D.D.C. June 15, 2000) 205 F.R.D. 369 (D.D.C. 2002); No. 98 CV 3115 (D.D.C. 2000) – complaint

Plaintiff States alleged that Mylan Laboratories, Inc.(Mylan) and other drug companies entered into illegal agreements to monopolize the market for certain generic anti-anxiety drugs.

Read More →

U.S. and Arizona v. Delta Dental Plan of Arizona

Joint US/Arizona settlement with statewide dantal plan to eliminate most favored nation clause from contract with participating dentists

Read More →