Corcept Therapeutics Inc. is seeking to prevent a former federal appeals court judge from testifying in an antitrust lawsuit brought by Teva Pharmaceuticals, arguing that her legal assessments could improperly influence jurors deciding whether the company obstructed competition in the market for its drug Korlym.
In a motion filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Corcept challenged the proposed testimony of Kathleen O’Malley, a retired judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit who has been retained as an expert by Teva, according to Reuters.
Corcept contends that O’Malley’s opinions address legal questions that jurors must resolve rather than providing specialized technical evidence to assist their deliberations. The company also argues that her previous judicial position could give her conclusions disproportionate credibility.
The dispute represents the latest development in a broader legal confrontation between the pharmaceutical companies over the commercialization of generic alternatives to Korlym, a treatment for patients with Cushing’s syndrome, a hormonal disorder associated with excessive cortisol.
Dispute Centers on Generic Competition
Teva filed its antitrust lawsuit in 2024, accusing Corcept of using patent litigation to protect Korlym from generic competition. The Israeli pharmaceutical company alleges that Corcept pursued patent infringement claims without a legitimate basis to delay Teva’s entry into the market.
According to Reuters, Teva maintains that the alleged conduct caused significant lost revenue and is seeking financial compensation as well as an injunction against practices it considers anticompetitive.
Corcept has denied the allegations.
Korlym contains mifepristone, a compound also used in medication abortion, although the product at issue in the litigation is prescribed for a different medical condition.
The commercial dispute follows years of patent litigation involving Teva’s generic version of the treatment.
In February 2026, the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court decision that Teva’s proposed generic product did not infringe two Corcept patents covering methods of administering mifepristone. The ruling marked a separate development in the companies’ patent dispute.
Read more: Teva Settles Claims Alleging It Blocked Cheaper QVAR Alternatives
Corcept disclosed in its subsequent regulatory filings that Teva had introduced its generic version in January 2024. The company also said the antitrust litigation was scheduled for trial in March 2027.
Former Judge’s Expertise Under Scrutiny
O’Malley, who served on the Federal Circuit from 2010 until 2022, submitted an expert report supporting Teva’s position that Corcept had engaged in improper patent litigation, Reuters reported.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
After leaving the bench, she worked at the law firms Irell and Sullivan & Cromwell before establishing a consulting practice that includes expert-witness assignments.
Her participation has become a point of contention because Corcept argues that her report offers legal interpretations rather than the type of specialized factual analysis typically provided by expert witnesses.
Lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, representing Corcept, contend that permitting a former judge to explain how the jury should assess the underlying legal issues would interfere with the jury’s independent role.
The company’s objection focuses not only on the substance of O’Malley’s conclusions but also on the potential influence of her judicial credentials.
According to Reuters, Corcept warned in its filing that jurors might attach excessive importance to her testimony despite the company’s contention that she lacks relevant technical expertise.
The challenge raises a procedural question for the court: whether O’Malley’s experience with patent law would help jurors evaluate the evidence or instead introduce legal conclusions that should be left to the judge and jury.
Broader Legal Battle Continues
The antitrust proceedings extend beyond the admissibility of expert testimony.
Corcept has also sought to defeat Teva’s allegations involving exclusive distribution arrangements. In a separate motion reported by MLex on Oct. 9, the company argued that the evidence developed during discovery failed to establish Teva’s theory that its pharmacy distribution agreements unlawfully restricted competition.
Corcept’s regulatory disclosures identify Optime Care, a former specialty pharmacy partner, as another defendant in the antitrust proceedings. The litigation includes allegations involving distribution arrangements and alleged violations of federal and state competition laws.
The outcome could determine whether Teva can pursue damages tied to its claims that Corcept unlawfully delayed competition, although those allegations remain contested.
Source: Reuters.
Add as Preferred Source