In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation

Filing 221

OPINION & ORDER #105875 re: (131 in 1:13-cv-09244-RA-RLE) MOTION to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. filed by Takeda Pharamceuticals, U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Takeda America Holdings, Inc., (125 in 1:13-cv-09244-RA-RLE) MOTION to Dismiss Joint Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. filed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Actavis plc, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., (122 in 1:13-cv-09244-RA-RLE) MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (124 in 1:13-cv-09244-RA-RLE) MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Takeda Pharamceuticals, U.S.A., Inc., Actavis plc, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Mylan, Inc. Two years after Actavis, federal judges continue to grapple with its implications and many questions of first impression remain to be decided. One thing should be clear. While some settlements of patent infringement suits may produce anticompetitive effects yet be cleverly designed to evade antitrust scrutiny, not all settlements are illegal, nor-in the Court's view should they be. Protecting against anticompetitive conduct is an important interest, but so too is the innovation the patent laws are intended to protect. The aim of this Court, like those in Actavis and its progeny, is to balance these interests as the law prescribes. It is not this Court's role, however, to expand the scope of Actavis beyond what was contemplated in the Supreme Court's decision. In this case, Plaintiffs' allegations fall short of cognizable anticompetitive conduct. Permitting the claims to go forward would exceed the contours established by Actavis, and discourage or needlessly restrict future patent settlements in a fashion not currently supported by law. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint are granted in their entirety. Plaintiffs have previously amended the Complaint three times and further amendment would be futile. Accordingly, dismissal is with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate items 122, 124, 125, and 131 on the docket and to close the consolidated cases listed in footnote 1 of this Opinion. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth within this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 9/22/2015) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-09244-RA-RLE et al.(ajs) Modified on 9/24/2015 (ca). Modified on 9/24/2015 (ajs).