Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D. Cal.: Allergy treatment monopolization suit moved to New York City, (Jul 22, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

A suit involving the same parties and related to the same pharmaceutical product was already filed in New York.

The federal district court in San Diego, California transferred to the federal district court in New York City an antitrust case alleging that pharmaceutical company AptarGroup, Inc. has maintained a monopoly position and has illegally blocked the emergence and expansion of competitive alternatives to its emergency-use single-dose intranasal spray system. Biopharmaceutical company ARS Pharmaceuticals Operations, Inc. sought to stop Aptar from continuing its anticompetitive conduct and enable emergence and expansion of competitive options to dismantle Aptar’s longstanding monopoly. Aptar filed suit against ARS for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract in a New York federal district court. Six months later, ARS filed an antitrust complaint asserting claims for violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act in San Diego. The court held that, under the first-to-file rule, the case should be transferred to New York City (ARS Pharmaceuticals Operations, Inc. v. AptarGroup, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02571-BJC-VET (S.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2026)).

Aptar, is also a pharmaceutical company that makes nasal drug delivery systems, including its emergency-use single-dose intranasal spray system called “UDSl.” Aptar was the only supplier of single-dose intranasal spray systems for emergency-use applications between at least 2021 and August 2024. ARS is a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in the treatment of severe allergic reactions. ARS’s only approved product is an innovative offering called neffy—a single-dose emergency-use intranasal drug-device combination product that administers epinephrine through a nasal spray.

According to ARS, Aptar engaged in a number of exclusionary practices in order maintain its monopoly. Specifically, Aptar’s terms and conditions for sales left ARS with no choice but to purchase both rubber plungers and single-dose intranasal systems from Aptar rather than a new market entrant. The complaint alleged that Aptar’s conduct forced ARS to purchase unwanted volumes of Aptar’s single-dose intranasal system at Aptar’s inflated price; enabled Aptar to extend and maintain its monopoly position for single-dose intranasal spray systems by diminishing and delaying competition; denied ARS its choice of suppliers; and caused and continues to cause ARS significant damages including overcharges on purchases it is being forced to make from Aptar that it would otherwise have made from another company at a substantially lower price.

On March 25, 2025, Aptar filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that ARS violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and misappropriated trade secrets. On September 29, 2025, ARS filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California alleging that Aptar violated Sherman and Clayton Act provisions.

The substance of the dispute involves the allegations of ARS that the anticompetitive actions of Aptar, occurring more than five years after the expiration of Aptar’s patent for injectable epinephrine devices, kept ARS from marketing its “no needle, no injection” product (“neffy”).

Aptar moved to dismiss the case brought in the Southern District of California based on the first-to file rule. The California court noted that the first-to-file rule allows a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district court. When determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule, courts consider three factors: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues.

The California court noted that first two factors were not in dispute. The only question was whether the issues of the California and New York complaints were similar. The two actions assert different claims. However, the facts underlying the claims are substantially similar. Both actions address the parties’ conduct surrounding the supply of the components for ARS’s product neffy. In the New York case, Aptar asserts that ARS misappropriated and disclosed Aptar’s confidential and trade secret information to a third party to create a nasal delivery system to compete with Aptar.

In the California action, ARS asserts that Aptar’s conduct in response to ARS’s attempts to seek a third-party supplier for one of the neffy components amounts to improper tying and monopolization. ARS contends Aptar’s conduct giving rise to this case occurred after Aptar filed the New York action. However, ARS argues, in its motion to dismiss the New York case, that the New York case is not about trade secrets but is about Aptar’s attempt to maintain its monopoly. Thus, the California court stated that ARS recognizes that Aptar’s conduct giving rise to the California action is relevant to and overlaps with the issues in the New York case.

Accordingly, the California district court finds that transferring the California action will eliminate the duplicative efforts to resolve the issues central to both cases.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-02571-BJC-VET.

Judge: Cheeks, B.

Attorneys: David Burns (Cooley LLP) for ARS Pharmaceuticals Operations, Inc. Alejandro E. Moreno (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP) for AptarGroup, Inc.

Companies: ARS Pharmaceuticals Operations, Inc.; AptarGroup, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews