May 21, 2026
The importance of the $885 million antitrust verdict this week against Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. had less to do with the nine-figure damages than ending private plaintiffs’ losing streak challenging deals delaying cheaper generics.
The Boston federal jury’s finding that Takeda improperly paid a competitor to delay it from bringing a generic version of its Amitiza constipation medication to market marked the first time a private plaintiff won at trial in a reverse-payment case.
Most challenges to deals between branded drug companies and generic makers either settle or are dismissed before reaching trial, with the more nuanced agreements sometimes making it to a jury. Three have been tried before a jury since the US Supreme Court put drugmakers on notice that the dealings could run afoul of antitrust laws. Until Monday, juries had rejected plaintiffs’ claims each time.
. . .
Generic Delayed
The breakthrough trial win is bound to fuel more cases challenging the dealmaking between brand drug companies and generic makers, antitrust attorneys said.
It shows that reverse-payment cases are worth bringing to trial despite worries about their complexities, Sharon Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC said. That could push companies to settle antitrust claims before cases reach jurors.
The result “sends a signal to the defense bar that juries are capable of understanding these issues and we can get a win on these cases,” Robertson said.
Jurors in the Takeda trial found the company’s deal with Par Pharmaceuticals included an illegal reverse-payment and declining-royalty provision that delayed the entry of the cheaper generic for about three years.
Minding the Details
Both sides of the drug industry are also likely to mine the trial evidence and transcripts to further develop a road map for how courts and juries might to handle reverse-payment deals like Takeda’s.
. . .
The deals have long been evolving, attorneys said. Shortly after the high court put reverse payments on the map, drug companies shifted from “bags of cash” deals to ones that included agreements for the branded drug maker not to produce their own generic, Robertson said.
The deals got more nuanced as plaintiffs brought new challenges, and that may be unlikely to change, she said.
“You are just seeing that shift over time,” Robertson said. “As you point to something and bring it to light, you see brand manufacturers find a new way to operate that has the same effect of suppressing generic competition.”
Read Takeda Antitrust Verdict Seen as Big Win in Generic-Drug Fight.