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.
Texas v. Zurich American Insurance Company (In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lit. (D.C. No. 04-cv-05184, D.N.J.)
Zurich settled claims involving payment of contingent commissions and submission of false bids for insurance coverage.
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.
U.S. and Texas, et al v. Oracle, Corporation, No.C-04 0807 (JCS )(N.D.Cal.2005)
Merger review of two of the most dominant vendors of high function Human Resource Management software and high function Financial Management Services software.
Curran v. Schwinn Bicycle Co. 92183022 /CE150758 (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City 1992).
Resalw Price Maintenance; joint advertising and sale at set prices during a three day sales event.
Curran v. Trek Bicycle Corp., No. 92183023/CE150759 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City 1992).
Resale Price Maintenance: joint advertising and sale at set prices during a three day sales event.
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.
Curran v. Electrolux Corp., (Cir. Ct. for Baltimore City, 1991) (filed 12/19/91; approved 12/31/91)
Resale Price Maintenance of vacuum cleaners
New York v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000)
U.S. Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States alleged that the Defendant, Microsoft Corporation violated State and Federal law by maintaining a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems and by illegally tying its Windows operating system to its Internet Explorer browser.
