Pharmaceutical Antitrust

TCL is and has been involved in over a dozen antitrust class actions in which we represent purchasers of pharmaceutical products. In these actions, we allege that brand name drug companies engage in anticompetitive conduct in order to delay or prevent competition from manufacturers of less expensive generic versions of brand name drugs. Such conduct inflates the cost of prescription drugs for direct purchasers and consumers. We play an active role in helping aggrieved purchasers recover hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges they have incurred by paying inflated prices as a result of such illegal conduct.

  • In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)

    As class counsel we played an active role through trial preparation in this case which alleged that the defendants conspired to keep generic diabetes medicine off the market. The case resulted in a $453 million settlement–one of the largest in the history of generic-delay cases.

  • In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.)

    TCL was appointed to the Executive Committee in this case where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant abused the FDA’s citizen-petition process (among other things) in order to prevented cheaper eye drops from entering the market. The case settled for $51 million.

  • In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)

    TCL played a key role on the Executive Committee guiding this case on behalf of purchasers of Lidoderm alleging that the defendants conspired to delay launch of
    less expensive versions of lidocaine patches. Along with our co-counsel, we recovered a $166 million settlement for direct purchasers on the eve of trial.

  • In re Effexor XR Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.)

    As a member of the Executive Committee, we represent direct purchasers of Effexor XR who were prevented from substituting less expensive generic versions of Effexor XR because of Defendants’ alleged scheme to monopolize the market, that included committing fraud to secure a patent and making a large payment to a generic competitor to delay the generic from entering the market. The district court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the patent fraud claim but dismissed the reverse payment claim, which was reversed on appeal. Discovery is ongoing on all claims

  • In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation (D. Mass.)

    As class counsel, we were actively involved in helping to secure a $72.5 million settlement for a class of direct purchasers alleging that a brand-name pharmaceutical
    manufacturer paid its generic competition to stay off the market, which in turn inflated the price of certain skin medication.

  • In re Zetia Antitrust Litigation (E.D.Va.)

    We represent direct purchasers of the drug Zetia alleging that defendants conspired to delay launch of cheaper generic versions of ezetimibe. As members of the Executive Committee and active members of the trial team, we helped achieve a successful settlement for our clients at the beginning of the trial.

  • In re Celebrex Antitrust Litigation (E.D.Va.)

    We represented direct purchasers in a class action alleging that Pfizer delayed generic competition for its successful pain reliever Celebrex, by making misrepresentations and omitting material facts before the USPTO in order to obtain a reissue patent covering Celebrex, and that asserting to the patent prevented generic versions of Celebrex from entering the United States market. On the eve of trial, the case settled for $94 million.

  • Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc. (E.D. Pa.)

    We represented Giant Eagle in an antitrust action alleging that Cephalon paid its generic competitors to stay off the market with their competing generic versions of Provigil, and we successfully negotiated an individual settlement for Giant Eagle.

Scroll to Top