Antitrust component of patent dispute withstands motion to dismiss
Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Nos. 02-1512-KAJ, 03-120-KAJ, 05-340-KAJ, 05-360-KAJ (consolidated), May 26, 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court denied Abbott and Fournier’s motion to dismiss various antitrust actions.
Plaintiffs allege Abbott and Fournier manipulated the statutory framework that regulates the market for pharmaceutical drugs in order to present generic substitutes for the branded drug TriCor fenofibrate from having a meaningful opportunity to enter the market. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that taking the allegations as true, their conduct in changing the Tricor formulation and implementing changes in the market does not violate antitrust law, that sham litigation allegations were inadequately plead, that overall scheme/claims should be dismissed because the individual components fail to state a claim, that antitrust injury is inadequately plead, that Defendants’ involvement in some of the alleged scheme is inadequately plead, and that state law allegations fail to state a claim.
Jordan, J. The Court denied Abbott and Fournier’s motion to dismiss various antitrust actions.
Plaintiffs allege Abbott and Fournier manipulated the statutory framework that regulates the market for pharmaceutical drugs in order to present generic substitutes for the branded drug TriCor fenofibrate from having a meaningful opportunity to enter the market. The Court rejected defendants’ arguments that taking the allegations as true, their conduct in changing the Tricor formulation and implementing changes in the market does not violate antitrust law, that sham litigation allegations were inadequately plead, that overall scheme/claims should be dismissed because the individual components fail to state a claim, that antitrust injury is inadequately plead, that Defendants’ involvement in some of the alleged scheme is inadequately plead, and that state law allegations fail to state a claim.
