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.
In re Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 410 F. Supp. 669, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9407 (D. Minn. 1974)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant companies conspired to monopolize and restrain the trade for the manufacture, sale and distribution of broad spectrum antibiotics (BSA).
In re Clozapine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 874 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
Plaintiff States sought monetary damages and injunctive relief against Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Sandoz), alleging the company unlawfully required those who purchased its drug, Clozapine, to also purchase distribution and patient monitoring services from Sandoz.
In re: Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.) (see also Ohio v. Bristol Myers Squibb
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) attempted to maintain an unlawful monopoly on buspirone hydrochloride, a medication used to treat generalized anxiety. In settling, BMS agreed to a stipulated injunction and to reimburse consumers and state and local public entities for overcharges. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlement, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation 99-MD-1278 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2003), 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants entered into an unlawful agreement attempting to delay or prevent the marketing of less expensive generic alternatives to Cardizem CD, a brand name drug used to prevent heart attacks. The Plaintiff States settled for $80 million, the bulk of which was to be used to reimburse purchasers including consumers, insurance companies and other third-party payers for overcharges paid for Cardizem CD between 1998 and 2003.
Ohio, et al, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al.(D.D.C. 2002); see also In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 01 CV 11401, MDL 1410, MDL 1413 (S .D.N.Y.)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that the drug company, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (BMS) wrongfully maintained a monopoly on Taxol, a drug for which the Plaintiff States alleged Defendant fraudulently filed a patent. BMS’s alleged wrongful action delayed entry into the market by generic competitors of the drug, resulting in higher prices for Taxol. In 2008, plaintiff states sued BMS for failing to report accurately to the states, pursuant to the settlemen, a patent arrangement involving the drug Plavix. The company pleaded guilty to lying to the FTC and the states recovered $1.1 million in fines.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC et al., No. 04-C-254M (Cir. Ct. Marshall Cty. 2004)
Plaintiff state filed a lawsuit and consent order to settle the lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, and SmithKline Beechham Corporation, the manufacturers of the prescription drugs, Paxil, Augmentin, and Relafen. Paxil is commonly prescribed for anxiety and depression, Augmentin is an antibiotic, and Relafen is a non-steroidal pain reliever. The State alleged that the defendants had unlawfully attempted to extend their patent protection for the three prescription drugs. After an investigation, the State reached an agreement with the defendants to settle the manner. Under the terms of the settlement, the State received $500,000.00.
West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Abbott Labs and Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 05-C-180 (Cir. Ct. Wyoming Cty. 2005)
The brand name maker of the prescription drug Hytrin, Abbott, entered into an agreement with Geneva to keep Geneva’s generic version of Hytrin off the market. Geneva was paid a substantial amount of money by Abbott while Abbott continued to collect monopoly profits on its name brand drug. Because of federal laws, Geneva effectively blocked the entry of other generic drug makers from entering the market. The matter settled in conjunction with MDL litigation.
In re: K-Dur Litigation (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Schering Plough), D.N.J. Civ. No. 01-1652
Suit alleges that Schering-Plough unlawfully maintained its monopoly on K-Dur 20 and conspired in restraint of trade with Upsher-Smith and ESI Lederle.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
