Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.  Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.

In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action.  On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding.  (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)

The Commission challenged Pfizer Inc.’s proposed $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth and required significant divestitures to preserve competition in multiple U.S. markets for animal pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The proposed consent order remedies the anticompetitive effects the Commission believes are likely to result from the transaction in numerous markets for animal vaccines and animal pharmaceutical products. After a thorough investigation, the Commission concluded that the transaction does not raise anticompetitive concerns in any human health product markets.

Generic drug marketer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to divest its rights and interests in five generic injectable pharmaceuticals to settle charges that its $5 million acquisition of the rights to various drug products and related assets from Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, without a remedy, Hikma’s purchase of certain generic injectables would likely harm future competition in the U.S. markets for (1) Acyclovir sodium injection: an antiviral drug used to treat chicken pox, herpes, and other related infections, (2) Diltiazem hydrochloride injection: a calcium channel  blocker and antihypertensive used to treat hypertension, angina, and arrhythmias, (3) Famotidine injection: a treatment for ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, (4) Prochlorperazine edisylate injection: an antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia and nausea, and (5) Valproate sodium injection: a treatment for epilepsy, seizures, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and migraine headaches. Hikma is required to divest the five generic injectable drug assets to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California-based specialty pharmaceutical company that sells generic injectable and inhalation products.

To settle charges that its acquisition of DSI Renal would substantially lessen competition for outpatient dialysis services in Laredo, Texas, U.S. Renal agreed to divest three clinics to Satellite Healthcare, Inc.