Black Friday is Now! Don’t miss out on up to 60% OFF InvestingProCLAIM SALE

AstraZeneca, Ranbaxy prevail in Nexium antitrust trial

Published 05/12/2014, 20:44
© Reuters. busA man walks past a sign at an AstraZeneca site in Macclesfield
AZN
-
RANB
-

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) - A Massachusetts jury has found that an agreement between AstraZeneca Plc (L:AZN) and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (NS:RANB) to delay the launch of a generic version of AstraZeneca's heartburn drug Nexium was not anticompetitive.

The verdict, handed down Friday in federal court in Boston, is the first time a jury has decided such a case since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that so-called "pay-for-delay" settlements may run afoul of antitrust laws.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission estimates that pay-for-delay deals, in which a branded drugmaker pays a generic rival to stay off the market, cost consumers $3.5 billion each year.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, which include drug wholesalers, retailers and insurers, could not be reached for comment. AstraZeneca and an attorney for Ranbaxy released statements saying they were pleased with the verdict.

The lawsuit, which began in 2012, challenged a 2008 settlement in a patent suit between AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs claim the settlement gave Ranbaxy nearly $1 billion to delay the launch of its generic Nexium.

The suit originally also targeted two other generic drugmakers that reached deals with AstraZeneca over Nexium, namely Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd, but both settled with the plaintiffs.

Two other cases against the same four companies over the Nexium settlements are pending in Pennsylvania state court. Those cases are not affected by Friday's verdict.

Ranbaxy had planned to launch generic Nexium this year, but the FDA recently revoked its approval, citing problems with the company's manufacturing process.

© Reuters. busA man walks past a sign at an AstraZeneca site in Macclesfield

The case is In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 12-2409.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson; Editing by Ted Botha and Andrew Hay)

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.