man-user-icon Client Login Portal
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    Labaton Sucharow
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Contact Us
    • Knowledge Network
    • Client Login
    • Search
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Ongoing Cases
    • Settled | Resolved Cases
    • Featured Cases
      • Securities
      • Derivative
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • REITs and Limited Partnerships
      • Consumer Products & Data Privacy

    In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation

    Settled: December 31, 2004

    As co-lead counsel, we obtained a $44.5 million settlement along with an important Court of Appeals decision upholding the right of indirect purchasers to bring antitrust claims in federal court seeking to enjoin anti competitive conduct.


    The Coumadin litigation arose out of allegations that DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, later known as DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company ("DuPont"), engaged in an unlawful scheme to, inter alia, boost sales and profits of its warfarin sodium product, a blood thinning medication whose brand name is Coumadin. It did so by fostering unwarranted concerns over the safety and effectiveness of less expensive generic substitutes.

    DuPont enjoyed a monopoly in the market for warfarin sodium for decades, despite the fact that its patent for the drug expired in 1962. In 1997, Barr Laboratories, Inc. obtained FDA approval for a generic equivalent to Coumadin. In disregard of the FDA's determination that Barr's generic product was just as safe and effective as its brand-name equivalent, DuPont engaged in a course of deceptive marketing to maintain its market share, including baseless warnings to doctors and patients, and advertisements advising patients switching to the generic product to take additional drug tests.

    Plaintiffs were consumers and third-party payors (prescription benefit providers) who alleged that DuPont had disseminated false and misleading statements about the safety and effectiveness of a generic competitor's bioequivalent product, with the result that Class members paid more for DuPont's brand-name product. We negotiated a $44.5 million settlement as co-lead counsel that is notable for including claims under the laws of all fifty states. The case also resulted in an important Court of Appeals decision upholding the right of indirect purchasers (consumers and their prescription benefit providers) to bring antitrust claims in federal court seeking to enjoin anticompetitive conduct.

    Useful Links

    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Center

    Our Locations

    footer-list-map_icon New York
    140 Broadway
    New York, NY 10005
    212-907-0700

    footer-list-map_icon Delaware
    222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    302-573-2540

    Useful Links

    footer-list-map_icon Washington, D.C.
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    212-907-0700

    Stay Connected

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Attorney Advertising Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Transparency in Coverage Rule
    • labaton.com
    • Labaton Sucharow All Rights Reserved 2022

    Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

    The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should not take action based upon this information without consulting legal counsel. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon any single source of information, including advertising on this website. You may ask us to send you further information about us, and we urge you to review other sources of information about us.