midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
583 F.Supp.3d 455
S.D.N.Y.
2022
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiffs (direct purchasers, end-payors, and several retailers) allege that Forest (brand maker of Bystolic) entered into settlement and contemporaneous "side" agreements with seven generic manufacturers (Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, et al.) in 2012–2013 that postponed generic entry until September 17, 2021.
  • The generics had filed ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications; Forest sued for infringement, triggering statutory delays under Hatch‑Waxman; plaintiffs say Forest paid or transferred value to induce the generics to drop their challenges ("reverse payments" or pay‑for‑delay).
  • Alleged side deals took varied forms: supply term sheets, patent assignments, collaboration/options, milestone and upfront payments, and financing/releases involving a Moksha8 intermediary.
  • Plaintiffs claim these transfers were large relative to anticipated litigation costs and were pretextual (not fair value for services), causing supra‑competitive prices and market allocation.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Court dismissed the Direct Purchaser, Retailer, and End‑Payor complaints without prejudice but granted leave to amend (DPP/Retailer/EPP to file amended complaints by Feb. 22, 2022).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a large and unjustified reverse payment under Actavis Alleged transfers (settlements + side deals) amount to large reverse payments that exceeded litigation costs and lacked legitimate justification Payments reflect avoided litigation costs, fair-value services, or ordinary commercial deals; plaintiffs rely on group pleading and conclusory "information and belief" assertions Dismissed: plaintiffs plausibly alleged large transfers but failed to plead factual support that payments were unjustified/explained; Actavis requires more factual showing of lack of procompetitive justification
Whether side agreements and settlements should be read holistically (linkage) Forest admitted the side deals were connected to the Bystolic settlements; agreements executed contemporaneously support holistic review Defendants urged courts to analyze each agreement in isolation and reject inferences of linkage Court accepts plaintiffs’ allegation of linkage for pleading purposes but still dismissed on failure to plead unjustified transfers
Whether End‑Payor state‑law claims survive if federal antitrust claims fail State claims are viable substitutes for federal claims and should proceed under state law State claims rest on the same deficient factual foundation as federal claims; Illinois Brick bars federal indirect‑purchaser suits Dismissed without prejudice: state claims largely mirror federal allegations and fail for the same reasons; plaintiffs may replead state claims with adequate factual detail
Personal jurisdiction (Teva Israel; Nonresident Defendants over non‑NY state claims) Plaintiffs asserted jurisdictional facts in complaints Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction Court did not decide jurisdictional motions as moot after dismissing claims on the merits; jurisdictional motions denied without prejudice as moot

Key Cases Cited

  • FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136 (2013) (reverse‑payment settlements can violate antitrust law under the rule of reason when large and unjustified)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (context‑specific plausibility standard for pleadings)
  • Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) (indirect purchasers lack federal antitrust standing)
  • Fed. Trade Comm’n v. AbbVie Inc., 976 F.3d 327 (3d Cir. 2020) (discussing pleading standards for reverse‑payment claims post‑Actavis)
  • In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) (analysis of reverse‑payment allegations and Actavis guidance)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation
Court Name: District Court, S.D. New York
Date Published: Feb 2, 2022
Citations: 583 F.Supp.3d 455; 1:20-cv-05735
Docket Number: 1:20-cv-05735
Court Abbreviation: S.D.N.Y.
Log In