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
Tablets until July 2008 causing substantial delay in generic entry
and the defendants' agreed to limit generic competition in the
market for Lamictal Chewables. Plaintiffs allege that as a result
of defendants' conduct, plaintiffs and members of the class have
been compelled to pay supracompetitive prices for Lamictal Tablets
and Lamcital Chewables.
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). 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 be an
unexplained large transfer of value from the patent holder to the
LEAD ATTORNEYS: David F. Sorensen, Michael J. Kane, Daniel C.