In Re: Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

3:14-md-02516

Court:

Connecticut

Nature of Suit:

Anti-Trust

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action, Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

Stefan R Underhill

Firms

Companies

Sectors & Industries:

January 09, 2018
Aggrenox End-Payors Reach $54M Deal In Pay-For-Delay Suit

A proposed class of indirect Aggrenox buyers told a Connecticut federal judge on Monday that they have reached a $54 million settlement agreement with Teva Pharmaceutical and Boehringer Ingelheim over allegations the companies blocked generic alternatives to the stroke-prevention drug from coming to the market.
September 20, 2017
$146M Deal In Aggrenox Pay-For-Delay MDL Gets Initial OK

A Connecticut federal judge on Tuesday preliminarily approved a $146 million settlement between direct purchasers and pharmaceutical companies over the drugmakers’ alleged role in a scheme to block generic alternatives to the stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox from coming on the market.
July 25, 2017
Retailers Seek Docs Given To FTC In Aggrenox MDL

Humana and retailers including Walgreen Co. and Rite Aid Corp. that are suing pharmaceutical companies over their alleged role in a scheme to block generic alternatives to stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox on Monday urged a Connecticut federal court to require the drugmakers to give them documents recently turned over to the Federal Trade Commission.
June 16, 2017
Humana Drops Pay-For-Delay Claims Against Boehringer

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Co. on Friday reached an agreement with Humana Inc. in Connecticut federal court to dismiss Humana's antitrust claims related to the pharmaceutical company's alleged role in a scheme to block generic alternatives for its stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox.
May 17, 2017
Foreign Boehringer Units Look To Ax Aggrenox MDL Claims

A pair of foreign Boehringer units urged a Connecticut federal judge on Monday to throw out claims by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and Humana Inc. related to an alleged scheme to keep generic versions of the stroke-prevention drug Aggrenox off the market, saying the insurers failed to serve them properly.
September 08, 2016
Boehringer, Teva Want Aggrenox Pay-For-Delay Claims Nixed

Boehringer and Teva urged a Connecticut federal court on Wednesday to toss antitrust claims by Humana Inc., its employee health funds and other indirect purchasers of blood-clot medication Aggrenox in multidistrict litigation accusing the pharmaceutical companies of paying to keep generics off the market, saying the claims don't hold up.
August 10, 2016
Some Indirect Claims Stay In Aggrenox Pay-For-Delay Row

A Connecticut federal judge on Tuesday kept alive some antitrust claims by Humana Inc., employee health funds and other indirect purchasers of blood-clot medication Aggrenox in multidistrict litigation that accuses Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. of paying to keep generics off the market.
February 29, 2016
Aggrenox Buyers Cry Foul In Pay-For-Delay Discovery Row

Three groups of purchasers alleging Boehringer Ingelheim paid Teva unit Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. to keep a generic form of blood-clot medication Aggrenox off the market hit back at the drugmakers' discovery request Friday, saying BI is overstating competition its drug faced to obscure monopolistic market power.
February 08, 2016
Don't Limit Aggrenox Pay For Delay Discovery, Judge Told

Boehringer Ingelheim and Teva told a Connecticut federal court Friday it would be "profoundly unfair" to limit discovery in a pay-for-delay case over Aggrenox solely to that medication, insisting the relevant market extends beyond the stroke prevention drug and its generics.
January 11, 2016
Aggrenox Judge Questions Need For Broad Market Discovery

A Connecticut federal judge ordered Boehringer Ingelheim and Teva on Friday to show why discovery in a pay-for-delay case over Aggrenox should not be limited solely to that stroke-prevention drug, saying it was not clear market definition evidence was necessary.