In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., 14-cv-10150

• Court: United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
• Parties: IN RE OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES
• Docket Number: 14-cv-10150,MDL 2580
• Decision Date: 27 July 2022

IN RE OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES

No. 14-cv-10150

MDL No. 2580

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

July 27, 2022

Scott E. Perwin Lauren C. Ravkind Anna T. Neill KENNY NACHWALTER P.A. Counsel for Plaintiffs Walgreen Co., The Kroger Company, Safeway, Inc., HEB Grocery Co. L.P., and Albertson's LLC

Barry L. Refsin Alexander J. Egerváry HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER Counsel for Plaintiffs Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

David F. Sorensen Andrew C. Curley BERGER MONTAGUE PC Gregory S. Asciolla Karin E. Garvey Matthew J. Perez DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER

Bruce E. Gerstein Jonathan M. Gerstein GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER, LLP Wall Street Plaza Co-Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Class

Michael J. Freed Robert J. Wozniak Brian M. Hogan FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC Co-Lead Counsel for the End-Payor Classes

PLAINTIFFS' POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR FOR A NEW TRIAL

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................................... 5

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 7

I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE ENDO FAILED TO IDENTIFY ANY COGNIZABLE PROCOMPETITIVE JUSTIFICATION. . ..................................................................... 7

A. Endo Offered No Evidence That Its Reverse Payment Was Procompetitive at the Time of Its Agreement With Impax 8

B. Endo Offered No Evidence of Any Procompetitive Justification Resulting From the Reverse Payment Found by the Jury 14

C. Endo Offered No Evidence to Rebut Plaintiffs' Showing That a Settlement Without a Reverse Payment Was a Less Restrictive Means of Achieving the Benefits of Settlement 19

II. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL TO CORRECT THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VERDICT FORM, AND EVIDENTIARY RULINGS. . .............. 22

A. The Jury Instructions and Verdict Form Were Contrary to the Law Governing the Competitive Effects of a Reverse Payment. . ................................. 22

1. Time for Assessment of Competitive Effects .................................................. 23

2. Need to Justify the Reverse Payment ............................................................... 26

3. Avoidance of Risk of Competition .................................................................. 29

4. Less Restrictive Means .................................................................................... 31

B. The Extensive Evidence of the Later-Issued Patents and Related Litigation Should Have Been Excluded as Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial. . .................... 35

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 38

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 2, 33

Agushi v. Duerr, 196 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 7

Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., 255 F.Supp.3d 604 (E.D. Pa. 2017) ............................................ 9

Blackburn v. Sweeney, 53 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................... 8

Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231 (1918) ...................................... 24, 25, 36

Cullen v. Olin Corp., 195 F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1020 (2000) ................................................................................................................................. 7, 35

EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 809 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2016) ............................................................ 6, 22

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................................. 6

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013) ............................................................................. passim

FTC v. Watson Pharms, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) ..................................................... 31

Happel v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 602 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2010) ....................................................... 7

Hasham v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 200 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2000) ..................................... 7

Impax Labs., Inc. v. FTC, 994 F.3d 484 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 712 (2021) ..................................................................................................................... 9, 11, 33, 35

In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 94 F.Supp.3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) ...................................... 9, 11

In re Cipro Cases I & II, 348 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2015) ....................................................................... 9

In re Glumetza Antitrust Litig., 2021 WL 3773621 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2021) ........................... 28

In re Impax Labs., Inc., 2019 WL 1552939 (FTC Mar. 28, 2019), review denied, 994 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 712 (2021) ................................. passim

In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 983 (2018) .............................................................................................................................. 15

In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 433 F.Supp.3d 274 (D.R.I. 2019) ..................................... 28

In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., 162 F.Supp.3d 704 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (“Opana ER I”) ............................................................................................................................................. 2

-ii-

3

In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., 2021 WL 2291067 (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2021) ("Opana ER II") .............................................................................................................. passim

In re Polygram Holding, Inc., 136 F.T.C. 310 (2003), review denied, 416 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................................... 16

In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 734655 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2018) ................................................................................................................ 28

In re Surescripts Antitrust Litig., 2022 WL 2208914 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2022) ........................... 21

In re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litig., 2021 WL 6690351 (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2021) ...................................................................................................................................... 37

King Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015) (“Lamictal”), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 446 (2016) ......................................................... 2

Kleen Prods. LLC v. Int'l Paper Co., 831 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2016) ............................................ 36

Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 791 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2015) .................................................. 6

Martin v. Milwaukee Cnty., 904 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 6

N. Tex. Specialty Physicians v. FTC, 528 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1170 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 16

Nat'l Farmers' Org., Inc, v, Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 850 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................................................... 36

NCAA v. Alston, 141 S.Ct. 2141 (2021) ................................................................................. 19, 32

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) .......................... 16

Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S.Ct. 2274 (2018) .................................................................. 24, 32

Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U.S. 46 (1990) .......................................................................... 11

Pittman v. Cnty. of Madison, Ill., 970 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2020) ..................................................... 7

Polk Bros. v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 776 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1985) ................................ 8, 23, 35

Rapold v. Baxter Int'l Inc., 718 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 6

Realcomp II, Ltd. v. FTC, 635 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 942 (2011) .............................................................................................................................. 16

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) ................................................. 6

Sansone v. Brennan, 917 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2019)...