Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR Document 59 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, )
INC. and TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL )
INDUSTRIES, LTD., )
>
Counterclaim Plaintiffs, )
>
v. ) Civ. No. 02-1512-SLR
) (Consolidated)
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, )
FOURNIER INDUSTRIE ET SANTE )
and LABORATOIRES FOURNIER )
S.A., )
>
Counterclaim Defendants. )
IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., )
>
Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. No. O3-120-SLR
) (Consolidated)
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, )
FOURNIER INDUSTRIE ET SANTE )
and LABORATOIRES FOURNIER )
S.A., )
>
Counterclaim Defendants. )
IN RE TRICOR DIRECT ) Civ. No. 05-340-SLR
PURCHASER ANTITRUST ) (Consolidated)
LITIGATION )
IN RE TRICOR INDIRECT ) Civ. No. 05-360-SLR
PURCHASER ANTITRUST ) (Consolidated)
LITIGATION )

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR Document 59 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 2 of 4
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., )
I
Plaintiffs, )
I
v. ) Civ. No. 08-155-SLR
I
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, )
FOURNIER INDUSTRIE ET SANTE )
and LABORATOIRES FOURNIER )
S.A., )
I
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 18th day of August, 2008, having reviewed various pending
motions with the benefit of oral argument;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. In the interests ofjudicial economy and in order to more effectively manage
the complexity of this litigation, the state law claims of the indirect purchaser plaintiffsi
and of counterclaim plaintiffsz are hereby stayed until further order of the court. The
litigation commenced by multiple States against the defendants (Civ. No. 08—155—SLR)
shall be stayed as a consequence and the pending motion to consolidateg is denied
without prejudice to renew. Likewise, defendants’ motions for leave to file a motion for
*To wit, indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims under the antitrust statutes of various
states and the consumer protection statutes of all of the states and the District of
Columbia, as well as their claims of urijust enrichment. (Civ. No. 05-360-SLR)
2To wit, counterclaim plaintiffs’ state law tortious interference claims. (Civ. Nos.
02-1512-SLR and 03-120-SLR)
3(Civ. No. 08—155—SLR, D.l. 30)
2

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR Document 59 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 3 of 4
summary judgment on said state law cIaims" are denied without prejudice to renew.
2. Defendants’ motions for summaryjudgment on relevant market definition5 are
denied, as the experts for plaintiffs have provided evidence of record sufficient to
demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by
ajury.6 ge Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 199 (3d Cir.
1992); Columbia Metal Culvert Co., Inc. v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp., 579 F.2d 20,
28 (3d Cir. 1978).
3. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the
issue of antitrust injury7 is denied,“ as I read the court’s decision in Walgreen Co. v.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., 534 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2008), veiy differently
than do defendants. The court in AstraZeneca actually distinguished the "offending
conduct" of the defendants at bar from that of AstraZeneca, finding that defendants at
bar were charged with "e|iminating choices available to the consumer" by
"repurchas[ing] all existing prior formulations" of TriCor®, thus precluding competition
"(Civ. No. 02-1512-SLR, D.l. 596; Civ. No. 03-120—SLR, D.I. 502; Civ. No. 05-
340-SLR, D.l. 384; Civ. No. 05-360-SLR, D.l. 377)
5(Civ. No. 02-1512—SLR, D.l. 603; Civ. No. 03-120-SLR, D.I. 511; Civ. No. 05-
340—SLR, D.I. 396; Civ. No. 05-360—SLR, D.I. 390)
6More specifically, the experts retained by plaintiffs have opined that the relevant
market is fenofibrate products, while defendants’ experts have opined that the relevant
market is all dyslipidemia products.
7(Civ. No. 02-1512—SLR, D.|. 597; Civ. No. 03—120—SLR, D.|. 503; Civ. No. 05-
340—SLR, D.l. 385; Civ. No. 05-360-SLR, D.l. 378)
BT he motion for leave to file a surreply to the motion for leave is denied as moot.
(Civ. No. 02-1512-SLR, D.I. 615; Civ. No. 03-120-SLR, D.I. 521)
3

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR Document 59 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 4 of 4
by generic substitutions of the older formulations? Based on my review of the law and
the record, the issue of antitrust injury is not amenable to a summaryjudgment practice.
United States%lstrlct Judge
9In direct contrast to the facts of record, despite the introduction of a new
formulation (Nexium), AstraZeneca continued to manufacture and market its old
formulation (Prilosec); generic manufacturers, therefore, had the option of competing
against Nexium with the old formulation (Prilosec) and the opportunity to convince the
market that there were no significant differences between the old and new formulations.
534 F. Supp. 2d at 148-49.
4

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR

Document 59

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR

Document 59

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR

Document 59

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00155-SLR

Document 59

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 4 of 4