James M. Burns Provides Comments to the Pharmaceutical Law Report on the Lipitor 'Pay for Delay' Antitrust Case

September 22, 2014
James Burns, a Member in Dickinson Wright’s Washington D.C. office and co-leader of the firm’s Antitrust practice, recently provided his antitrust insights to BNA’s Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report regarding the recent federal court decision in In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation (No. 3:12-cv-02389-PGS-DEA).

In the case, Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that the plaintiffs, purchasers of Pfizer Inc.’s cholesterol medication Lipitor, had failed to state an antitrust claim against Pfizer arising from Pfizer’s settlement of a patent infringement suit between Pfizer and Ranbaxy. Judge Sheridan held that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged the monetary value to Pfizer of Ranbaxy’s agreement to delay entry into the market, and thus the plaintiffs’ allegations did not satisfy the pleading requirements for stating a “pay for delay/reverse payment” antitrust claim under the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis (133 S.Ct. 2013). According to Mr. Burns, the decision “adds to the mixed bag of rulings from the lower courts concerning what types of ‘reverse payments’ are potentially actionable,” and the lack of consistency in these rulings suggests that the issue may ultimately find its way back to the Supreme Court.

A link to the article including Mr. Burns’s comments that appeared in the Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report can be found here.
  • |