Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Conn.: Sun granted summary judgment on Methylphenidate and Phenytoin price fixing claims, (Apr 21, 2026)

By Sara Cracau, J.D.

The court also granted Sun judgment on state law claims and on stated that it would grant the company judgment on an overarching conspiracy claim if the plaintiff States did not respond.

In a case brought by state attorneys general (“the States”) alleging that pharmaceutical companies and executives (“the defendants”) each participated in a series of conspiracies, as well as an overarching conspiracy, to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids in the sale of dozens of generic drug products, the federal district court in Hartford, Connecticut granted a motion for summary judgment brought by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Sun). as to claims relating to Methylphenidate and Phenytoin price-fixing under the Sherman Act. The court also granted summary judgment as to the state-law claims against Sun. Finally, although neither Sun nor the States addressed the claim that Sun participated in an overarching conspiracy to fix drug prices in their briefs, the court said it would will decide the issue based on the existing record and grant summary judgment to Sun on the claim if the States did not respond to an order to show cause within the timeframe set out by the court as to why the court should not grant summary judgment to Sun as to the overarching conspiracy claim. For extra clarity, the court added that the States need not respond to this show cause order if they do not believe that they can, in light of this ruling, raise a genuine dispute of fact about whether Sun participated in the alleged overarching conspiracy (State Of Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS (D. Conn. Apr. 16, 2026)).

In a previous ruling, the court declined to dismiss the action because there appeared to be evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find that the alleged overarching conspiracy existed. It did not, however, rule as to the involvement of any particular pharmaceutical company. Pharmaceutical companies subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss. This decision deals with the motion of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Sun). The court also granted summary judgment as to the state-law claims against Sun pharmaceutical Industries because all the allegations and evidence in the record pertain to Sherman Act conduct and the states failed to raise a triable issue concerning Sherman Act conduct.

Attorney generals of most states and a number of U.S. territories commenced an action against thirty-six pharmaceutical companies and executives alleging that they each participated in a series of conspiracies and an overarching conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets, and rig bids in the sale of approximately 80 generic drugs, primarily for dermatological applications (the Dermatology Complaint). The Dermatology Complaint was remanded to the District Court of Connecticut where it had originally been filed. Sun moved for summary judgment on the overarching conspiracy claim with respect to two drugs: Methylphenidate IR (Methylphenidate) and Phenytoin sodium-extended-release (Phenytoin).

Methylphenidate and Phenytoin. One factor that Sun often considered in deciding on how to price its generic products, was market demand and the risk associated with the loss of market share in case of a price increase. Sun’s president had no role or responsibilities at Taro during the relevant time period involved in this action. Methylphenidate, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and some sleep disorders, had three primary suppliers in early 2013. At the time of Sun’s launch of this generic drug, methylphenidate was on the FDA’s list of drug shortages and this drug was also regulated by the DEA as a controlled substance. The DEA issued a quota to Sun limiting the amount of methylphenidate API that Sun would be able to supply to the market. After launching this drug, Sun struggled to meet its customer demand because of supply constraints and then it exited the market and reentered it in April 2014. In June 2014, Sun’s director of sales asked his colleagues to reach out to customers to see what they could find out relating to pricing activity of phenytoin, a general anti-epileptic drug used to prevent and treat seizures. It subsequently placed the drug in reserve and began monitoring purchase orders of the product. After implementing price increases, Sun experienced supply shortages and in August 2014 incurred a failure-to-supply penalty with one customer. In November and December of that year, Sun informed customers that it soc not fulfill its pending phenytoin orders and was on backorder. Before Sun’s competitors announced that their price increases, Sun enjoyed approximately five percent of the market share.

The chronology of Methylphenidate price increases and Sun’s entry into the market were not in dispute. Neither did Sun contest that the WAC prices it set upon entry into the market were essentially the same as the prices its competitors were charging. The court noted, however, that evidence of parallel pricing alone, however, was insufficient to support an inference of collusion. The states had to identify additional “plus” factors to allow an inference of conspiracy. The testimony of a former executive of a competitor was not probative of Sun’s participation in the conspiracy Some of the other communications that were testified to did not give any indication that Sun knew or believed that certain information that had been disclosed came from a competitor nor did the court find that such knowledge constituted a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Regardless of all the arguments made relating to the various communications that were testified about, the court found that these did not place Sun in the mix. Neither did it find that Taro’s communications with its competitors showed, more likely than not, that Taro was conspiring on Sun’s behalf. The court also rejected attempts to suggest that certain discussions occurred at the 2013 National Association of Chain Drug Stores meeting would allow a jury to infer indicia of a conspiracy. It found that, based on the totality of the evidence, that Sun’s decision to enter the Methylphenidate market and match its competitors prices was more likely than not the result of Sun’s participation in a conspiracy. Likewise, it reached the same conclusion based on its analysis of the various communications that were testified to with respect to Phenytoin.

State law claims and overarching conspiracy. The court also granted summary judgment as to the state-law claims against Sun because all the allegations and evidence in the record pertain to Sherman Act conduct and the states failed to raise a triable issue concerning Sherman Act conduct. Furthermore, although the complaint alleged that Sun engaged in an overarching conspiracy to fix drug prices, the states did not point to any evidence that suggested that the pharmaceutical company was involved. Nonetheless, the court decided to proceed with an abundance of caution and give the states an opportunity to show cause why the court should not grant summary judgment in favor of the pharmaceutical company. If the states do not respond, the court will decide the issue on the existing record.

The Case is No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS.

Judge: Shea, M.

Attorneys: Samuel Jarashow Randall (Sperling Kenny Nachwalter, LLC) for State of Connecticut. Jeffrey Mueller (Day Pitney LLP) for Sandoz, Inc.

Companies: Sandoz, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust ConnecticutNews