On March 21, 2018 End-Payor Plaintiffs, sought preliminary Court approval of an unopposed pay-for-delay class action settlement reached with Defendants for $104.75 million. This settlement is complementary in terms and value to a separate settlement negotiated between Direct Purchasers and Defendants. A Final Approval hearing is anticipated to take place in or around July 2018.
Cohen Milstein serves as Co-Lead Counsel for the End-Payor Class Plaintiffs.
Consolidated in 2014, this multidistrict litigation involves claims from Lidoderm purchasers that Teikoku Pharma USA Inc. and Endo International Plc reached an improper $266 million deal with Watson Pharmaceuticals in underlying patent litigation to delay the launch of generic versions of the blockbuster anesthetic. Purchasers of the drugs allege that the settlement constituted an illegal “pay-for-delay” arrangement that violated competition law and resulted in purchasers paying inflated prices for brand Lidoderm due to the delay in generic entry.
Direct purchaser plaintiffs include pharmaceutical wholesalers, pharmacies, hospitals, and retail stores that purchased brand and generic Lidoderm patches directly from defendants and supplied the product to others, according to court documents. End-payor plaintiffs include employee health and welfare benefit plans, unions or individuals who purchase the drug from third parties, including third party payors who may have provided Medicare Part D reimbursement for the price of Lidoderm.
On February 21, 2017, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick for the Northern District of California granted the Court certified the End-Payor Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. The class period for from the End-Payor Plaintiffs runs from August 23, 2012, through August 1, 2014.
In early November 2017, Judge Orrick denied summary judgment to Endo, Teikoku and Watson, ruling there was evidence to show that Watson could have prevailed in a patent infringement trial had the trio of companies not settled.
The case was set for trial in February 2018 but the parties reached resolution prior to the commencement of trial proceedings.
In July 2017, Law360 recognized In re: Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, as one of the biggest competition cases of 2017.
The case is styled: In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:14-md-02521, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.