Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was named lead class counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of brand or generic Exforge tablets. Defendants are Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis AG (collectively, “Novartis”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Sherman Act when Novartis and its generic competitor, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment license agreement delaying generic competition for Exforge, thereby maintaining the price of Exforge at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the class. Plaintiffs are seeking overcharge damages incurred by the class caused by Defendants’ misconduct. 

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was named co-lead class counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of brand or generic Opana ER 5, 10, 20, 30, and/or 40 mg tablets. Defendants are (a) Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively, “Endo”) and (b) Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Sherman Act when Endo and its generic competitor, Impax, entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment settlement agreement delaying generic competition for Opana ER, thereby maintaining the price of Opana ER at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the class. Plaintiffs are seeking overcharge damages incurred by the class caused by Defendants’ misconduct. 

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in unlawful conduct to delay and impair competition by generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendant engaged in an unlawful, multifaceted scheme to destroy demand for Suboxone® tablets and coerce patients, physicians, and managed care entities away from Suboxone® tablets and over to Reckitt’s new Suboxone® film product, in order to force Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and members of the Class (defined below) to purchase branded Suboxone® film instead of generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets (which Plaintiffs allege were less expensive), once they became available on the market.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also allege that, in order to give itself more time to destroy demand for Suboxone® tablets and move sales over to Suboxone® film, Defendant delayed the market entry of generic Suboxone tablets by manipulating FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy process.  Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that they and the other members of the Class were injured by being overcharged because of losing the opportunity to purchase less expensive, generic bioequivalent versions of Suboxone® tablets in place of the more expensive branded Suboxone® tablets and film, and by paying higher prices for Suboxone® tablets.

Defendant denies these allegations, and denies that any Class member is entitled to damages or other relief. Defendant also denies that any of its conduct violated any applicable law or regulation. No trial has been held.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $750 million settlement was reached in 2019.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Forest Laboratories, LLC, Actavis plc, Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd. (“Forest” or “Defendants”) violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Namenda IR into the United States market, causing injury to direct purchaser plaintiffs and members of the class by depriving them of the opportunity to purchase lower-priced generic versions of Namenda. The lawsuit claimed that, among other things, Forest engaged in a “hard switch” to shift the market to brand Namenda XR prior to the generic entry of Namenda IR, and that Forest entered into a “reverse payment” agreement with Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. to agree to delay Mylan’s and other generic manufacturers’ launch of generic Namenda IR. Plaintiffs argued that, as a result of these actions, Forest willfully maintained monopoly power in the market for Namenda IR in the United States, thereby maintaining the price of Namenda IR at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher was appointed co-lead counsel of the Direct Purchaser Class. A $166 million settlement was achieved on behalf of the Class.

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by entering into an anticompetitive agreement that delayed or blocked the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of Lidoderm.  Specifically, the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that Endo and Teikoku agreed to pay Watson with brand Lidoderm patches and by agreeing not to start selling an authorized generic version of Lidoderm until 7.5 months after Watson launched its generic Lidoderm. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs further alleged that, in exchange for these payments, Watson agreed to delay selling its generic version of Lidoderm, thereby reducing competition from less expensive generic versions of Lidoderm. Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured because they were overcharged for their purchases of brand and/or generic Lidoderm because of the delay in the availability of less expensive, generic versions of Lidoderm, including an authorized generic Lidoderm.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $98 million settlement was reached in 2015.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Astellas Pharma US, Inc. violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Prograf into the United States market, causing injury to direct purchaser plaintiffs and members of the class by depriving them of the opportunity to purchase lower-priced generic versions of Prograf. The lawsuit claimed that, among other things, Astellas filed a baseless Citizen Petition with the FDA, which delayed the approval of generic Prograf. Plaintiffs argued that, as a result of this action, Astellas willfully maintained monopoly power in the market for Prograf in the United States, thereby maintaining the price of Prograf at supra-competitive levels, and overcharging plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.

Serving as co-lead counsel, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP achieved a $190 million recovery for the Direct Purchaser Class.

Direct purchasers claimed that Pfizer violated federal antitrust laws by illegally delaying the entry of generic versions of the prescription drug Neurontin.  The active ingredient in Neurontin is gabapentin anhydrous.  The lawsuit claimed that Pfizer delayed competition from less expensive generic versions of Neurontin by executing a multifaceted scheme involving, among other things, improperly listing certain patents with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. engaging in illegal promotion and sales of Neurontin for unapproved uses, filing and maintaining sham litigations with respect to certain patents, and making misrepresentations to the patent courts.  Plaintiffs alleged that through its scheme, Pfizer was able to maintain its monopoly in the market for gabapentin anhydrous, improperly causing direct purchasers of Neurontin to pay artificially inflated prices for gabapentin products.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP was appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of the direct purchaser class in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation.  Nexium was the first reverse payment case to proceed to trial after the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136 (2013).  Plaintiffs settled with one defendant (Dr. Reddy’s) prior to trial, and settled with a second defendant (Teva) during the trial but before the jury verdict.  Under the Dr. Reddy’s settlement, Dr. Reddy’s agreed to provide various forms of cooperation to plaintiffs during the trial involving the remaining defendants.  The Teva settlement provided for the payment of $24 million dollars for the benefit of the Direct Purchaser Class and two other groups of plaintiffs, the Individual Retailer Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class, which litigated this action alongside the Direct Purchaser Class.

The lawsuit claimed that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by unlawfully delaying the introduction of generic versions of the prescription drug Nexium into the United States market, causing injury to Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and members of the Direct Purchaser Class by causing them to pay higher prices for Nexium.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as sole lead counsel on behalf of class and direct purchasers through 2015, during which a $512 million partial settlement was reached.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by engaging in an unlawful scheme to delay or block the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of Provigil (modafinil).  Plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer of branded Provigil, Cephalon, entered into a series of unlawful, non-competition agreements, or horizontal market allocation agreements, with its prospective generic competitors, Defendants Teva, Barr, Mylan, and Ranbaxy (the “Generic Defendants”), whereby Cephalon agreed to pay the Generic Defendants, in exchange for agreements by the Generic Defendants to delay selling their generic versions of Provigil.  The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also allege that Cephalon committed Walker Process fraud in obtaining U.S. Patent No. RE 37,516 and then sought to enforce a fraudulently obtained patent to delay the market entry of generic versions of Provigil.

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP served as lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers.  A $146 million settlement was reached in 2017.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs asserted that Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva, Barr, and Duramed violated antitrust laws by engaging in an unlawful scheme to delay or block the market entry of less expensive, generic versions of the prescription drug Aggrenox (extended release aspirin-dipyridamole).  The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs allege that Boehringer entered into several unlawful, non-competition agreements, or horizontal market allocation agreements, with its prospective generic competitor, Barr, whereby Boehringer agreed to pay Barr, in exchange for agreements by Barr to delay selling its generic version of Aggrenox.  After the challenged agreements were entered into, Barr was acquired by Teva.