Skip to Content

Daniel C. Simons

Senior Counsel
P: 215.875.4675
F: 215.875.4604
dsimons@bm.net Download vCard

Daniel C. Simons is senior counsel in the Antitrust and Consumer Protection unit of Berger & Montague. He concentrates a significant percentage of his practice on complex antitrust litigation, with a focus on anticompetitive arrangements in the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Simons has been at the forefront of the efforts to curb "pay-for-delay" agreements, whereby brand companies compensate generic rivals to forestall the entry of lower priced generic equivalents. His practice has led to appearances in district and appellate courts across the country.

Mr. Simons's significant representations have included:

  • In re Modafinil Antitrust Litigation,  No. 06-1797 (E.D. Pa.), in which Mr. Simons represents direct purchasers of the drug Provigil, suing the brand company for fraudulently obtaining its patents on the drug and entering into agreements with its four generic rivals to delay competition.
  • In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (N.D. Ga.). This private antitrust suit parallels the precedent-setting FTC v. Actavis case, which held that pay-for-delay agreements are not immune from the antitrust laws and must be examined under the antitrust "rule of reason."  133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). Mr. Simons was heavily involved in all aspects of appellate litigation, including the United States Supreme Court.
  • In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), where the Third Circuit held that pay-for-delay agreements are subject antitrust scrutiny, which helped to trigger the eventual review of the issue by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals also made notable holdings concerning class certification in delayed generic entry cases.
  • In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 585 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2009), the first appellate decision directly addressing the issue of antitrust standing for claims relating to fraudulently obtained patents. The case later settled on terms favorable to the direct purchaser class.
  • In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1515 (D.D.C.), in which Mr. Simons was one of the principal attorneys responsible for winning certification of a class of direct purchasers of generic versions of the antihypertensive drug Adalat CC, and for successfully defending that certification before the United States Court of Appeals. In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 365 (D.D.C. 2007), Rule 23(f) appeal denied, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3643 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2009). The case was resolved with settlements on behalf of the class worth $35 million.
  • In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation., Civ. A. No. 01-12239-WGY (D. Mass.), in which Mr. Simons was a member of the team of attorneys representing a class of direct purchasers of the prescription anti-inflammatory drug Relafen. A $175 million settlement was obtained on behalf of the class.
  • Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township, Civ. A. No. 01-1919 (E.D. Pa.), in which Mr. Simons represented a non-profit in a civil rights challenge. The case presented several questions of first impression under the Federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions, the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.