Antitrust injury found not amenable to summary judgment practice
Robinson, J. Court stays state law claims of indirect purchasers and counterclaim plaintiffs in Tricor action. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on state law claims are likewise denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on relevant market definition are denied. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on antitrust injury is denied.
This litigation began as a patent infringement ANDA case with respect to Tricor®, a drug used for treatment of high cholesterol. It is now the subject of antitrust counterclaim litigation. Various state law claims brought by indirect purchasers and counterclaim plaintiffs are stayed in the interests of judicial economy. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on state law claims is likewise denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on relevant market definition are denied, as the record demonstrates the existence of genuine issues of material facts. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of antitrust injury is denied. It distinguishes Walgreen Co. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., 534 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2008) because defendants at bar were charged with “eliminating choices available to the consumer” by “repurchas[ing] all existing prior formulations” of Tricor®, thus precluding competition by generic substitutions of the older formulations.
A full copy of the opinion is available here.
