The trial in Boston federal court is one of a handful to have taken
place since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 said so-called
"pay-for-delay" settlements resolving pharmaceutical patent lawsuits
can violate antitrust laws.
The settlements occur when a brand-name drugmaker pays a generic
rival to delay releasing a cheaper version of its product in
exchange for resolving court challenges to patents covering the
treatment.
A lawyer for Impax, in his opening statement, denied there was any
such arrangement to delay Solodyn's entry to the market.
Richard Arnold, a lawyer for the retailers, told jurors in his
opening statement that Impax in 2008 settled a lawsuit it filed
challenging a "weak" patent Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp held for
Solodyn by agreeing to delay releasing its a generic version until
2011.
In exchange, Impax received $40 million, allowing Medicis to
maintain its Solodyn monopoly longer, Arnold said.
"Instead of competing in the way we expect businesses to compete,
they choose to pay off Impax to delay entry into the market for
three years," Arnold said.
He said but-for that settlement, Impax would have launched its
generic version "at-risk" while the litigation continued.
But Douglas Baldridge, Impax's lawyer, noted the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration did not approve Impax's drug until February 2009
post-settlement and that its arrangement with Medicis allowed it to
release a generic version before Medicis' patent expired in February
2018.
[to top of second column] |
"How can that be delayed entry?" he asked.
The case is being pursued by a class of consumers, third-party
insurers and by several retailers, including CVS Health Corp and
Rite Aid Corp.
Jurors are being asked only to determine liability because damages
will be determined at a later trial.
Impax on Saturday reached a deal to resolve part of the litigation
it faced over Solodyn, agreeing to pay $35 million to resolve claims
by a class of direct purchasers such as retailers and wholesalers.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, which in 2012 acquired
Medicis, in February said it would pay $58 million to resolve
related claims against it.
Lawyers for the consumers and insurers have said they were
overcharged by up to $790.3 million and that the defendants were
unjustly enriched by up to $803.3 million, according to an October
court ruling.
Under federal antitrust law, any damages would be tripled.
The case is In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, No.
14-md-02503.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Jonathan Oatis and
Grant McCool)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |