In re Cardizem Cd Antitrust Litigation
Decision Date | 06 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-MD-1278.,99-MD-1278. |
Citation | 105 F.Supp.2d 682 |
Parties | In re CARDIZEM CD ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Actions. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Patrick E. Cafferty, Miler Faucher and Cafferty LLP, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs Charles Zuccarini, Albert Eirich and Jan Gabriel.
Scott E. Perwin, Kenny Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, Miami, FL, for The Kroger Co., et al.
Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin, Bronzaft, New York City, for Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., Sixteenth Street Community Health Center.
Stephen Lowey, Lowey, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, for Betnor, Inc.
Elwood S. Simon, Elwood S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, Mi, for Albert Eirich.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Berman, DeValerio, San Francisco, CA, for Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Aetna U.S. Healthcare of Cal., Inc.
Richard B. Drubel, Boies & Schiller, Hanover, NH, for Duane Reade, Inc.
Joseph J. Tabacco, Elwood S. Simon, Michael G. Wassmann, Lance C. Young, Elwood S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, AL, Stephen Lowey, Lowey, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, for State law Plaintiffs.
Joe Rebein, Shook, Hardy, Kansas City, MO, for Hoechst AG, Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft.
Craig L. John, Dykema Gossett, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Joe Rebein, Shook, Hardy, Kansas City, MO, for Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc.
Norman C. Ankers, Honigman, Miller, Detroit, MI, Colin A. Underwood, louis M. Solomon, Hal S. Lazaroff, Solomon, Zauderer, New York City, for Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Andrx Corp.
Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen, Milstein, Washington, DC, for Eugenia Wynne Sams.
Andrew J. McGuinness, Dykema Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, Craig L. John, Dykema Gossett, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Elwood S. Simon, Elwood S. Simon Assoc., Birmingham, Mi, Stephen Lowey, Richard W. Cohen, Lowey, Dannenberg, White Plains, NY, Angela K. Green, Niewald, Waldeck, Kansas City, MO, for Philip Neal, movant.
State Law Plaintiffs and Sherman Act Plaintiffs1 are before the Court on motions brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 56(a), for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs' motions raise a single issue, whether Defendants' September 24, 1997 Agreement ("HMRI/Andrx Agreement") constitutes a restraint of trade that is illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under the various state antitrust laws at issue here. This Court answers this question in the affirmative. It concludes that the HMRI/Andrx Agreement is an agreement between horizontal competitors that allocates the entire United States market for Cardizem CD and its bioequivalents to Defendant HMRI, and thus constitutes a restraint of trade that has long been held illegal per se under established Supreme Court precedent. See Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc., 498 U.S. 46, 111 S.Ct. 401, 112 L.Ed.2d 349 (1990); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 92 S.Ct. 1126, 31 L.Ed.2d 515 (1972); United States v. Cooperative Theatres of Ohio, Inc., 845 F.2d 1367 (6th Cir.1988). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment are GRANTED.
The manufacture and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs are regulated by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq. (1994). Congress passed the "Hatch-Waxman Amendments" to the Act in 1984 after concluding that the Act's "cumbersome drug approval process delayed the entry of relatively inexpensive generic drugs into the market place." Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Shalala, 81 F.Supp.2d 30, 32 (D.D.C.2000). The Hatch-Waxman Amendments, 21 U.S.C § 355 (1994), embody Congress' intent "to make available more low cost generic drugs" and its attempt "to balance two conflicting policy objectives: to induce name-brand pharmaceutical firms to make the investments necessary to research and develop new drug products, while simultaneously enabling competitors to bring cheaper, generic copies of those drugs to market." Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted).
. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(iv). As protection for pioneer drug makers, the applicant is also required to certify in one of four ways that the generic drug will not infringe on any patent which claims the pioneer drug. "See id. at § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)." Mylan Pharm., 81 F.Supp.2d at 32.
Applicable here is the fourth type of certification. Paragraph IV certification Mylan Pharm., 81 F.Supp.2d at 32. As the District Court for the District of Columbia recently observed, Mylan Pharm., 81 F.Supp.2d at 32-33.
To encourage competitors to bring cheaper generic drugs to market, and acknowledging that they will likely incur Id. at 33.
Section 355(j)(5)(B)(iv) provides that:
whichever is earlier.
Id. (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)). Accordingly, the 180-day period of exclusivity "can be triggered in one of two ways — either (1) when the generic producer begins commercial marketing of its drug (the `commercial marketing trigger'), or (2) when there is a court decision finding the pioneer drug maker's patent invalid or not infringed (the `court-decision trigger')." Mylan Pharm., 81 F.Supp.2d at 33 (footnote omitted).
Prior to August 1995, Defendant Andrx had been developing its own generic version of Cardizem CD, and provided samples of its proposed generic substitute for Cardizem CD to the Hoechst Defendants so they could perform their own tests to confirm that there was no infringement of the patents claiming Cardizem CD and thus avoid litigation.
On September 22, 1995, Andrx filed its Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") No. 74-752 with the United States Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic form of Cardizem CD, a once-daily, controlled release dosage of the chemical compound diltiazem hydrochloride, manufactured and sold by Defendant HMRI.
On November 28, 1995, two months after Andrx filed its ANDA, the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.Patent No. 5,470,584 ("the '584 patent") to Carderm which then licensed it to HMRI. The '584 patent claims a delayed release diltiazem formulation with an in-vitro dissolution profile where from 0-45% of total diltiazem is released after 18 hours and not less than 45% of total diltiazem is released after 24 hours.
On December 31, 1995, Andrx made a Paragraph IV Certification with regard to all unexpired patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book2 allegedly claiming Cardizem CD and certified to HMRI that the product reflected in its ANDA did not infringe the patents owned or controlled by HMRI or its affiliates, including the '584 patent.
On January 31, 1996, HMRI and Carderm filed a patent infringement suit against Andrx in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("HMRI/Andrx patent case"). The filing of the suit triggered the 30-month Hatch-Waxman waiting period, which expired on or before July 8, 1998. Thus, Andrx's ANDA could not be finally approved and it could not begin commercial marketing of its generic version of Cardizem CD until the 30-month waiting period expired or the court hearing the infringement action ruled that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Lit.
...48 (1982) ; In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 164 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1348-50 (S.D.Fla.2000) ; In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 682, 692 (E.D.Mich.2000). Therefore, Bayer's argument that partial summary judgement is improper in this case is The Per Se Rule and th......
-
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
...an examination of the agreement itself and the relationships of the parties to the agreement. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 105 F.Supp.2d 682 (E.D.Mich.2000), ("Cardizem II"), aff'd, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir.2003), pet. for cert. filed, 72 USLW 3393 (Nov. 4, 2003) (No. 03-779) (f......
- In re Cardizem Cd Antitrust Litigation
-
In Re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation. This Order Relates To All Actions.
...therefore subject to the rule of reason. This dispute presents a question of law for the Court. See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 682, 693 (E.D.Mich.2000) (“[W]hether to apply a per se or rule or reason mode of analysis in determining the reasonableness of the challenged......
-
Patents
...PROMOTING INNOVATION AND COMPETITION 119, 122 (2007) [hereinafter 2007 IP R EPORT ]. But see In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 682, 699, 704-05 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (patent settlement agreement that prohibited non-infringing licensee competition per se unlawful), aff’d , 332 ......
-
State antitrust enforcement in health care markets
...drug. 129 123. See FTC v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999). 124. See In re Lorazepam , 205 F.R.D. at 406–07. 125. 105 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Mich. 2000). 126. 160 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2001). 127. 185 F. Supp. 2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). 128. Complaint, Ohio ex rel. Montgo......
-
Table of cases
...2d 618 (E.D. Mich. 2000), 34, 40, 56, 57, 58, 59, 154 482 Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., In re, 105 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Mich. 2000), 31 Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., In re, 200 F.R.D. 297 (E.D. Mich. 2001), 152, 153 Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., In re......
-
Table of Cases
...193 362 State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 105 F. Supp. 2d 682 (E.D. Mich. 2000) ......................................... 159 In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003)........................................... 3, 9, 10 Cargi......