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.
Specifically, by finding that AstraZeneca would not have introduced its own generic had another generic entered the market, the jury found no threatened injury. The defendants may therefore argue that plaintiffs have failed with respect to their burden of proof. The hearing date for the permanent injunction is scheduled for February 6, 2015 before Judge William G. Young in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Full Content: Press Release
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
UK Business Secretary Calls for More Agile Competition Regulator
Feb 13, 2025 by
CPI
Germany’s Antitrust Regulator Raises Concerns Over Apple’s App Tracking Policies
Feb 13, 2025 by
CPI
$60 Billion Nissan-Honda Merger Falls Apart
Feb 13, 2025 by
CPI
DOJ Moves to End Protections for Three Regulatory Agencies
Feb 13, 2025 by
CPI
Meta to Allow Rivals to List Ads on Facebook Marketplace Following EU Fine
Feb 13, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Criminal Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
CPI
The Antitrust Division’s Recent Work to Combat International Cartels
Jan 23, 2025 by
Emma Burnham & Benjamin Christenson
Information Sharing: The New Frontier of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
Brian P. Quinn, Casey Kovarik & Michael Tubach
The Key Role of Guidelines on Exchanges of Information Among Competitors and the Divergent Transatlantic Paths
Jan 23, 2025 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Albert Metz
Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Compliance
Jan 23, 2025 by
Richard Powers, Tara O’Malley & Cory Gordon