Nexium found that AstraZeneca had violated the antitrust laws by acting to keep generics off the market but that no generic would have been introduced earlier in the market even without the violation. Thus, the jury found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief. Though the defendants have yet to file a response, they will likely argue the plaintiffs cannot show a threatened injury.
Featured News
EU Probes Meta Over Potential AI Restrictions on WhatsApp
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Netflix’s $72bn Purchase Bid Triggers Concerns Over Consumer Choice
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Formalizes Limits on Google’s Deals With Apple and AI Expansion
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Florida Governor DeSantis Pitches AI Bill of Rights for Residents and Local Governments
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
CFTC Gives Formal Blessing to Spot Trading of Crypto on Registered Exchange
Dec 7, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Intellectual Property
Nov 19, 2025 by
CPI
Dealing in Intellectual Property: IP Justifications and Defenses in Digital Markets Cases
Nov 19, 2025 by
Jennifer Dixton
The Evolving Role of Innovation Theories of Harm in the Antitrust Analysis of Life Science Mergers
Nov 19, 2025 by
Michelle Yost Hale, Matthew D. McDonald & Merrill Stovroff
Who Can Fix It? Antitrust, IP Rights, and the Right to Repair
Nov 19, 2025 by
Rosa M. Morales
Copyright, Antitrust, and the Politics of Generative AI
Nov 19, 2025 by
Daryl Lim