Maryland et al. v. Perrigo Company, No. 1:04CV01398 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2004)
The FTC and states alleged that the companies had entered into a “pay-for-delay” arrangement, whereby Perrigo paid Alpharma to withdraw its generic version from the market for Children’t ibuprofen.According to the complaint, in June 1998, Perrigo and Alpharma signed an agreement allocating to Perrigo the sale of OTC children’s liquid ibuprofen for seven years. In exchange for agreeing not to compete, Alpharma received an up-front payment and a royalty on Perrigo’s sales of children’s liquid ibuprofen. The FTC received $6.25 million to compensate injured consumers. The states received $1.5 million in lieu of civil penalties. the parties were enjoined from future agreements.
In re DDAVP Antitrust Litigation
33 states investigated “pay for delay” allegations relating to DDAVP, a drug used to alleviate bed-wetting. States alleged that Aventis, holder of the patent for the medication, engaged in a scheme to delay the regulatory approval and sale of a generic version of DDAVP, in violation of state and federal antitrust law. States and defendants entered into a settlement under which states received $3.45 million, not as a civil penalty and defendants did not admit guilt.
Texas et al. v. Penguin Group et al., No. 1:12-cv-03394-DLC (S.D.N.Y, Apr. 30, 2012)
TTexas and Connecticut led 33 state group that filed complaint charging three of the nation’s largest book publishers and Apple Inc. with colluding to fix the sales prices of electronic books. The States undertook a two-year investigation into allegations that the defendants conspired to raise e-book prices. Retailers had long sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers, not publishers, set e-book sales prices. The states alleged that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at $12.99 and $14.99. When Apple prepared to enter the e-book market, the publishers and Apple agreed to adopt an agency distribution model as a mechanism to allow them to fix prices. To enforce their price-fixing scheme, the publishers and Apple relied on contract terms that forced all e-book outlets to sell their products at the same price. Because the publishers agreed to use the same prices, retail price competition was eliminated. According to the States’ enforcement action, the coordinated agreement to fix prices resulted in e-book customers paying more than $100 million in overcharges. The States’ antitrust action seeks injunctive relief, damages for customers who paid artificially inflated prices for e-books and civil penalties. Case was filed in W.D. Tex., transferred to S.D.N.Y. as consolidated case. The States reached settlements with the five publishers, which granted E-book outlets greater freedom to reduce the prices of their E-book titles. Consumers nationwide received a total of $164 million in compensation. After entering into settlement agreement with all the Defendant publishers, DOJ and the states had a nearly 3 week trial against Apple in June 2013, during which numerous witnesses took the stand. On July 10, 2013, a decision was handed down in favor of the U.S. Department of Justice and the states against Apple. Trial of the damages phase is pending. United States et al. v. Apple, Inc., 12-CV-2826 (S.D.N.Y.).
U.S., Illinois, Colorado and Indiana v. AMC Entertaininment Holdings, No. 10-cv00846 (D.D.C. 2010)
AMC, a movie theater chain operates 304 U.S. theaters housing 4,574 screens, most
of which are located in megaplexes operates Kerasotes ShowPlace Theatres operates 96 movie theaters with 973 screens in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. USDOJ and the plaintiff states challenged the acquisition of Kerasotes by AMC on the grounds that it would reduce competition in markets in Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. To resolve the case, AMC agreed to divest eight theaters–four in Illinois, two in Colorado and two in Indiana.
Texas et al. v. Organon (Remeron), No. 04-5126 (D.N.J. 2004)
Plaintiff states settled with drug maker Organon USA, Inc. and its parent company, Akzo Nobel N.V., resolving antitrust claims involving the antidepressant drug Remeron between June 2001 and October 2004. The states’ complaint alleged that Organon unlawfully extended its monopoly by improperly listing a new “combination therapy” patent with the U.S. Federal Drug Administration. In addition, the complaint alleged that Organon delayed listing the patent with the FDA in another effort to delay the availability of lower-cost generic substitutes. The $26 million settlement resolved claims brought by state attorneys general, as well as a private class action brought on behalf of a class of end payors. Organon also agreed to make timely listings of patents and to submit accurate and truthful information to the FDA.
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.
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.
