New York v. Tele-Communications Inc., 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.
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.
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.
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.
Idaho v. Daicel Chemical Co. et al., No. 30379 (Idaho 2005)
State filed suit on behalf of indirect purchasers after federal guilty pleas by sorbates manufacturers. Case dismissed on grounds that Idaho Competition Act which permitted recovery by indirect purchasers was not enacted until 2000 and did not permit retroactive application.
U.S. et al. v. EchoStar Communications, Corp., et al. No. 1:02CV02138 (D.D.C.)
Federal and State action to enjoin merger of two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies. The merging parties abandoned their merger agreement
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.
Utah v. Phillips Petroleum Co. and Conoco, Inc., No. 2 02 CV-0982 (D. Utah 2002)
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Phillips Petroleum Co. (Phillips Petroleum) and Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) from entering into a merger agreement, arguing that the merger would substantially impair competition for refining bulk supply and sale of gasoline.
Texas v. Conoco, Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Company (D.C. TX, 2002); Missouri v. Conoco Inc., No. 02-4190-CV-W-NKC (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2,
Plaintiff States sought to enjoin Conoco, Inc. (Conoco) and Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips Petroleum) from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition for natural gas gathering and for natural gas liquids fractionation.
Texas v. Zeneca, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13153 (N.D. Tex. 1997)
States sought an injunction and monetary damages from Zeneca, Inc. (Zeneca), alleging that the company conspired with distributors of its crop protection chemicals to maintain the resale price of the chemicals.
