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
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
      • The Liaison
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars

    Court Gives Greenlight to Xyrem Purchasers’ Antitrust Lawsuit

    On Friday, August 13, 2021, United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh (ND Cal) issued an order in In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation upholding the plaintiffs’ complaint and largely denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  In the case, the plaintiffs, purchasers of the drug Xyrem, allege that the defendants, Jazz Pharmaceuticals and certain generic drugmakers, engaged in anticompetitive conduct to block generic entry of the drug until at least July 1, 2023.

    The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly pled that Jazz, the brand manufacturer of Xyrem, entered into unlawful reverse payment settlements with several generic companies to delay generic competition for Xyrem.  Between Jazz and the first filing generic company, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, the court found that the plaintiffs “plausibly alleged at least three reverse payments . . . (1) Jazz’s six-month delay on third-party licensing; (2) the escalating royalty structure for Hikma’s [authorized generic] sales; and (3) an acceleration clause that deters generic entry and enforces collusion among all Defendants.”  The alleged value of these payments is close to $500 million.  The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Jazz entered into additional illegal reverse payment settlements, valued in the tens of millions of dollars, with three more generic manufacturers. 

    The court also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the reverse payment settlements, all reached in quick succession, constituted an overarching conspiracy between the defendants to allocate the market for Xyrem.

    Aside from the reverse payments, the court found that plaintiffs adequately pled that Jazz unlawfully monopolized the market for Xyrem through its sham petitioning to the FDA regarding its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program and through a series of sham lawsuits against generic manufacturers to delay generic entry.

    Previously, on February 22, 2021, Partner Karin Garvey was appointed by Judge Koh to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.

    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 2023

    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.