Cases & Investigations

Lamictal Antitrust Lawsuit

PRODUCT: Prescription Drug Lamictal

Berger Montague represents a proposed class of direct purchasers of the prescription drug Lamictal.

Plaintiffs allege that SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), entered into an anticompetitive reverse payment with would-be generic competitor Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Teva Ltd.”) and its subsidiary Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) (jointly, “Teva”), whereby GSK paid Teva to stay out of the market for Lamictal IR tablets until July 2008 and whereby GSK agreed not to launch an authorized generic Lamictal IR tablets until January 2009, causing substantial delay in generic entry. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiffs and members of the class have been compelled to pay supracompetitive prices for brand and generic Lamictal IR tablets.

On June 15, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s granting of a motion to dismiss under FTC v. Actavis, __  U.S.__, 133 S.Ct. 2223, 186 L.Ed.2d 343 (2013). See King Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015). The Third Circuit found that a reverse payment is not limited to a cash payment and a brand drug company’s agreement not to launch an authorized generic version of the branded drug for period of time can qualify as a potentially unlawful reverse payment from the patent holder to the alleged infringer.

LEAD ATTORNEYS: David F. Sorensen, Michael J. Kane, Caitlin G. Coslett

Lead Attorneys

David Sorensen Headshot

David F. Sorensen

Managing Shareholder
Michael Kane Headshot

Michael J. Kane

Caitlin Coslett Headshot

Caitlin G. Coslett


Request A Free Consultation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.