A federal jury in Boston has found that Takeda Pharmaceutical orchestrated an anticompetitive scheme to stall a cheaper generic version of its constipation drug Amitiza, handing a group of purchasers roughly $885 million in damages. The buyers told the court that Takeda kept a rival generic off shelves for years, leaving pharmacies and insurers stuck with inflated prices. That eye-popping verdict could grow significantly under federal antitrust rules that allow treble damages.
As reported by Reuters, the lawsuits were filed in 2021 by pharmacies, insurers, health plans and retailers including CVS and Walgreens. They centered on a 2014 settlement with Par Pharmaceutical that plaintiffs said delayed generic competition and redirected profits away from rivals. After a multiweek trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, jurors awarded about $885 million to purchaser classes.
How the 2014 deal worked
According to court filings, the 2014 settlement gave Par the option to hold off launching its own generic Amitiza until January 1, 2021. In the meantime, Par could sell an authorized generic supplied by Sucampo under a profit-sharing arrangement that plaintiffs argued functioned as an illegal payoff to stay out of the market. Sucampo, the original developer of Amitiza, was later acquired by Mallinckrodt in 2018, a shift reflected in corporate releases and securities disclosures.
Who sued and what they argued
The buyers - a mix of pharmacies, insurers, health plans and large retailers - told jurors that the Par-Takeda arrangement blocked lower-cost generic options and forced them to shoulder higher payments for years, according to Bloomberg Law. In their telling, the settlement diverted downstream profits that competition would have spread among rivals and deprived purchasers of the price-cutting pressure that comes when generics enter the market.
Legal stakes and next steps
Under federal antitrust law, damage awards can be trebled. That means the jury's roughly $885 million verdict could balloon to around $2.65 billion before interest and fees are added, Reuters noted. Plaintiffs also told jurors that the 2014 deal amounted to an illegal payoff worth about $210 million, while Takeda has pushed back hard on the damage calculations and has opposed motions for entry of judgment, according to reporting from MLex. With that kind of money and some unsettled legal questions about pay-for-delay settlements on the line, few court watchers expect the case to end without an appeal.
Why the case matters
This trial is one of the relatively few pay-for-delay battles to actually reach a jury after the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, which held that reverse-payment settlements can be scrutinized under antitrust law, as explained by SCOTUSblog. A private-plaintiff win of this size has the potential to spur more lawsuits and to make brand-name and generic drugmakers think twice about how they structure their patent settlements going forward.
Class action next steps
Court notices show that a direct-purchaser litigation class has been certified, and affected buyers may be eligible to share in any recovery. The case website lists details on the certified class, important deadlines and how direct purchasers of Amitiza can submit claims.
