Amgen Dismisses Regeneron Antitrust Lawsuit and Moves to ContinueGoodwin

We previously reported on Regeneron’s antitrust lawsuit against Amgen in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Amgen recently filed a motion to dismiss Regeneron’s complaint and a motion to continue the lawsuit.

The lawsuit concerns Regeneron’s allegations that Amgen violated antitrust laws and “engaged in a sustained exclusion campaign to deny life-saving benefits to patients.” [] Regeneron’s Cholesterol-Lowering Drug, Praluent® (Alirocumab)” in its motion to dismiss under the Federal Reserve Board. R. Civ. Amgen argued that “antitrust laws do not condemn competition and low prices, but in fact embrace them,” and Regeneron’s “claims do not meet the standards necessary to make a claim.” ” he claims. Violation of antitrust laws. Specifically, Amgen claims that “Regeneron does not allege that Amgen’s price cut violates antitrust laws.” (2) Foreclosures are only 15.27%, far from the 40% to 50% “substantial foreclosures” that courts generally require. (3) fails to reasonably claim that the contract is of sufficient duration to be exclusive; (4) not claiming coercion; (5) employs an exclusive trade per se; Amgen also alleges that Regeneron’s antitrust claims failed “because Amgen did not claim that he bundled Repatha® with a proprietary or market-dominant drug rebate.” increase. Finally, Amgen argues that Regeneron’s remaining claims fail because they are derivative of antitrust claims.

Amgen is also moving to stay the litigation “until resolution of a patent litigation between Amgen and Regeneron involving the same drug at issue here” and is currently seeking Amgen’s waiver petition. is pending in the Supreme Court. Amgen said:[i]In this case, Regeneron alleges that Amgen engaged in anti-competitive conduct by marketing its drug Repatha® in such a way as to keep Praluent® out of the market.[m]All of Regeneron’s claims refer to patent litigation, and as such, “If Amgen wins the patent litigation, Regeneron’s allegations are debatable.” We are making this motion in order to save and save parties and non-parties costs and expenses that may prove unnecessary.”

We will continue to closely monitor developments in this matter.

[View source.]

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *