Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—J.P.M.L.: Conspiracy to suppress generic drug competition suits centralized in Connecticut; California, (Apr 10, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) last week centralized for pretrial proceedings two groups of antitrust suits challenging separate conspiracies to suppress generic drug competition (In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation; In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, April 3, 2014, Heyburn, J).

The JPML consolidated in the District of Connecticut eleven antitrust actions filed against a brand drug manufacturer for allegedly excluding generic competition for its brand drug Aggrenox prescription stroke medication through a reverse payment agreement with a generic competitor. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The parties to the disputes agreed that centralization was appropriate; however, they disagreed on the proper choice for a transferee district. In addition to three actions pending in the District of Connecticut, there were seven actions filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one action filed in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Given that the litigation involved alleged anticompetitive conduct concerning a prescription drug marketed throughout the nation, any number of districts could serve as the transferee district, according to the JPML. However, the District of Connecticut was appropriate since it was both convenient and accessible for the parties and the witnesses. Moreover, the matter was assigned to Judge Stefan Underhill, a “jurist well versed in the nuances of complex and multidistrict litigation to steer this matter on a prudent course.”

Separately, the JPML has centralized in the Northern District of California, a number of antitrust actions filed against a brand drug manufacturer for allegedly engaging in restraint of trade by excluding competition for a lidocaine patch medication sold under the brand name Lidoderm, through reverse payments and market allocation with generic competitors. The litigation currently consists of six actions pending in the Northern District of California, two actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, one action pending in the District of Rhode Island, and one action pending in the Middle District of Tennessee.

The Northern District of California was selected as the transferee district since six of 19 related actions are pending in the district. Both defendants and several plaintiffs favored the transfer. Moreover, the district will be the most convenient for the greatest number of parties to the litigation and has the necessary judicial resources and expertise to efficiently manage the litigation, the JPML concluded.

The cases are MDL No. 2516 and MDL No. 2521.

Attorneys: Alison Hanstead (White & Case) for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Michael K. Murray (Goodwin Procter, LLP) for Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. Christina H. Sharp (Girard Gibbs LLP) for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund. David S. Elkins (Squire Sanders LLP) for Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. Daniel B. Asimow (Arnold & Porter LLP) for Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. James Patrick Schaefer (Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP) for Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Companies: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.; Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust