Loestrin 24

DEFENDANT NAME: Warner Chilcott PLC
STOCK SYMBOL: NASDAQ: WCRX
CASE NUMBER: 1:13-md-02472-S
CASE NAME:
COURT: U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
PRACTICE AREA: Antitrust Litigation
STATUS: Active
CLASS PERIOD:
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE:
DATE FILED: 05/14/13
COURT LOCATION:
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
CONTACT:
617-482-3700 Loestrin@hbsslaw.com

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss

On Aug. 8, 2017, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ complaint,  allowing the direct purchasers’ sham litigation, patent fraud, product hop, and reverse payment claims to continue. The court dismissed claims against the parent companies Allergan and Actavis. Discovery is ongoing. The court has set a trial date for March 2019. For more details, read Judge William E. Smith’s orders:

Aug. 8, 2017 Order
July 21, 2017 Order

Hagens Berman has filed an antitrust lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturer Warner Chilcott (NASDAQ: WCRX), alleging the company used anti-competitive tactics, including lying to the U.S. Patent Office, to suppress generic competition for oral contraceptive drug Loestrin 24 Fe (also known simply as “Loestrin 24”).

According to the consolidated amended complaint, filed on December 6, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Warner Chilcott has used a number of illegal tactics to prevent the emergence of generic, and cheaper, competitors to Loestrin, the blockbuster birth control pill the company invented in the 1970s.

First, the complaint claims that the “new” drug, named Loestrin 24, was not different enough from the older versions to justify a new patent. However, thanks to a misleading application that failed to identify key evidence, Loestrin 24 was patented in 1996.  The FDA later confirmed that Loestrin 24 did not do what the patent claimed: reduce the incidence of breakthrough bleeding associated with low dose birth control pills.

The complaint goes on to describe that generic manufactures—aware that it was unlikely that the dubious patent would stand up to litigation—began to submit applications to the FDA for approval to sell generic versions of Loestrin 24 before the patent had expired.

HBSS alleges that Warner Chilcott responded with an even more audacious gambit: suing its would-be generic drug manufacturer competitors for breaching the questionable patent, and later conspiring with its would-be competitors to enter into anticompetitive “settlement” agreements that would keep generics off the market in exchange for a cut of Warner Chilcott’s profits.

The complaint also claims that Warner Chilcott’s filing of these lawsuits triggered an automatic 30-month stay against any potential generic competitors receiving FDA approval, a procedural tactic that further enforced its alleged illegal monopoly.

On September 4, 2014 Judge Smith dismissed the direct purchaser claims in their entirety because he erroneously interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis as requiring a cash payment from the brand to the generic in order to trigger antitrust scrutiny.  The claims are now up before the First Circuit.  Appellants’ brief is due May 19, 2015.

HBSS has been appointed co-lead counsel for the “direct purchaser class,” defined as all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Loestrin 24 directly from Warner Chilcott at any time during the period May 14, 2009, through and until the anti-competitive effects of the defendants’ conduct cease (the “Class Period”).

Those interested in more information on the case may contact an attorney at Loestrin@hbsslaw.com or by calling (617) 482-3700.


Hagens Berman purchases advertisements on search engines, social media sites and other websites. Transmission of the information contained or available through this website is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you seek legal advice or representation by Hagens Berman, you must first enter a formal agreement. All information contained in any transmission is confidential and Hagens Berman agrees to protect information against unauthorized use, publication or disclosure. This site is regulated by the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.

Back to all cases

Contact:

Please fill out the form below and we will get back to you as soon as we can.
 
*
*
*
Preferred Contact Method *
*
*
*
State *
*
How Did You Hear About This Case/Investigation? *
How Has This Issue Affected You? *
*
*
*
*
 

Case videos

Case Gallery

Case Timeline

08/08/17: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss

On Aug. 8, 2017, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ complaint,  allowing the direct purchasers’ sham litigation, patent fraud, product hop, and reverse payment claims to continue. The court dismissed claims against the parent companies Allergan and Actavis. Discovery is ongoing. The court has set a trial date for March 2019. For more details, read Judge William E. Smith’s orders:

Aug. 8, 2017 Order
July 21, 2017 Order

04/14/16: Status Conference

The district court has set a status conference for Apr. 21, 2016.

02/22/16: First Circuit Reverses, Remands Loestrin 24 Case

The district court earlier held that it was legal for brand companies to pay generics to stay off the market as long as the payment didn’t take the form of cash, and dismissed the purchasers’ case. On Feb. 22, 2016, the First Circuit said “applesauce” (to quote Justice Scalia) and reversed the decision. The First Circuit joined the Third Circuit in recognizing that a payment is a payment is a payment, noting that restricting Actavis to cash-only payments would contradict Actavis. The Court also noted that it would improperly, “give drug manufacturers carte blanche to negotiate anticompetitive settlements so long as they involve non-cash reverse payments.”

04/09/15: Appellate Schedule Issued
Appellate briefing schedule issued.

09/04/14: Order Issued on Motion to Dismiss
The Court issued an order on defendants’ motions to dismiss.

06/27/14: Oral Arguments on Motion to Dismiss
The Court held oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss.

03/24/14: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Direct purchasers opposed defendant’s motion to dismiss.

11/08/13: HBSS Named Interim Co-Lead Counsel

Hagens Berman was named interim co-lead counsel for a proposed class of direct purchasers in the case.

Related News