Miller Shah is one of the leading law firms in the United States in representing clients in so-called “reverse payment” antitrust litigation. In such cases, Miller Shah represents private health insurers and employee health, welfare and benefit funds.
Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States Supreme Court recently explained “reverse payment cases” within the antitrust context in the following manner:
Company A sues Company B for patent infringement. The two companies settle under terms that require (1) Company B, the claimed infringer, not to produce the patented product until the patent’s term expires, and (2) Company A, the patentee, to pay B many millions of dollars.
Because the settlement requires the patentee to pay the alleged infringer, rather than the other way around, this kind of settlement agreement is often called a “reverse payment” settlement agreement. And the basic question here is whether such an agreement can sometimes unreasonably diminish competition in violation of the antitrust laws. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act prohibition of “restraint[s] of trade or commerce”). Cf. Palmer v. BRG of Ga., Inc., 498 U.S. 46, 111 S.Ct. 401, 112 L.Ed.2d 349 (1990) (per curiam) (invalidating agreement not to compete).
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2223, 2227 (2013).
The above quote from Justice Breyer provides a clear encapsulation of the claims that we have taken the lead in pursuing on behalf of clients across the country. Miller Shah is one of the lead counsel in the private litigation related to the Actavis case (i.e., In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation, 1:09-md-02084-TWT) and also plays a leadership role in the following, cutting-edge reverse payment cases in which Miller Shah represents health insurance funds seeking reimbursement for excessive or overpayments it has made in reimbursing prescription drug costs as a result of collusive anti-competitive conduct by brand name and generic prescription drug companies, as described above:
- In re Actos Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-cv-9244 (S.D.N.Y.)
- In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2516 (D.Conn.)
- In re Liboderm Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-5257 (N.D.Cal.)
- In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2472 (D.R.I.)
- In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:13-cv-01977 (E.D.Pa.)
- In re Solodyne Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-cv-10452 (D.Mass.)
- In re Suboxone Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-00589 (E.D.Pa.)
Our Firm is committed to representing our clients in vigorously enforcing their rights under antitrust and competition laws to ensure that they generally are not harmed by anti-competitive conduct and, specifically, in the case of reverse payment cases that their health care costs are fair and reasonable and determined as a result of competitive, non-collusive and legal practices.
To discuss reverse payment litigation, contact Miller Shah to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced antitrust attorneys. With offices in California, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we handle cases nationwide.