We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Accept
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • GMPs, Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Drug Daily Bulletin
    • Drug Industry Daily
  • Device News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Device Daily Bulletin
    • FDAnews Device Daily Bulletin Premium
  • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Drug Books
    • Device Books
  • Training/Events
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • Events
  • Resources
    • Form 483s Database
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • eCFR and Guidances
    • White Papers
  • CenterWatch
  • About Us
    • The Company
    • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Teva Settles in Nexium Pay-for-Delay Lawsuit

Teva Settles in Nexium Pay-for-Delay Lawsuit

December 4, 2014

Teva has become the second generics maker to settle a lawsuit alleging that it conspired with AstraZeneca to delay generic entry of its blockbuster heartburn therapy Nexium, a move that comes as the judge overseeing the case continues to dampen plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.

The Israeli firm didn’t reveal the terms of its deal, which follows a settlement by fellow generics defendant Dr. Reddy’s in October in the case brought by health benefit funds.

AZ and generics firm Ranbaxy are the only two remaining defendants in the 2012 lawsuit, In Re: Nexium (esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, that started oral arguments last month.

Industry has paid close attention to the case, in part because it tests what kinds of patent infringement settlements are permissible after the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in the FTC v. Actavis antitrust case. Some lower courts have interpreted that ruling as permitting settlements, as long as they don’t include a cash transaction in exchange for delayed generic entry.

Plaintiffs claim that AZ’s patent infringement settlements with generics makers as early as 2008 amounted to cash transactions. For instance, AZ’s settlement with Teva involved waiving part of the debt that the Israeli generics maker owed AZ for a separate patent lawsuit. In return, the agreements overall gave generics makers the ability to produce a version of Nexium by May 2014.

Another twist in the widely watched lawsuit came when the judge issued a ruling that found that Teva and Ranbaxy did not conspire in the alleged scheme. There is not enough evidence to show the two generics makers acted in any way that wasn’t in their own economic self-interest, the Massachusetts U.S. district court judge said.

Plaintiffs now can argue only that a conspiracy existed between AZ and the individual generics makers, rather than between the generics, said Kevin Nelson, a partner with law firm Duane Morris. That ruling and another in September limiting conspiracy claims have successively winnowed down the case from a broad antitrust lawsuit to one that is narrower and harder for plaintiffs to win, Nelson said.

Meanwhile, generic Nexium has still not hit the market. The product has been held up by legal squabbles and regulatory scrutiny applied to first-filer Ranbaxy, which is now fighting to reinstate its tentative approval for the therapy after the FDA revoked clearance over quality problems at the firm’s India plants. — Bryan Koenig

Originally appeared in Drug Industry Daily, the pharmaceutical industry’s number one source for regulatory news and information. Click here for more information.

Drugs Commercial Operations

Upcoming Events

  • 04Apr

    Optimizing Quality Control Operations with Unified Quality

  • 20Apr

    Medical Device Enforcement: Latest Developments from the FDA, DOJ and FTC

  • 25Apr

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for Drugs, Devices and Clinical Trials

  • 27Apr

    Califf’s FDA, 2023 and Beyond: Key Developments, Insights and Analysis

  • 17May

    2023 WCG Avoca Quality Consortium Summit

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • FDA’s New Quality System Regulation: Transitioning from QSR to ISO 13485

    FDA’s New Quality System Regulation: Transitioning from QSR to ISO 13485

  • Selecting and Implementing Electronic Document Management Systems in the EU

    Selecting and Implementing Electronic Document Management Systems in the EU

Featured Stories

  • Prolira’s Beside EEG Monitor Cleared for Acute Brain Failure

  • Britain’s Pharma Association Suspends Novo Nordisk’s Membership

  • Cotras Gets FDA Approval of Virtual Reality Rehab Device

  • FDA Approves Novartis Treatment Combination for Pediatric Glioma

The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

Learn More
  • Drug Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • GMPs
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Device Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • QSR
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Clinical Products
    • Trial Design
    • Data Integrity
    • GCP
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Transparency
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data
Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing