In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation

*1160 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTS

Re: Dkt. No. 139

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns the alleged antitrust and anticompetitive impact of a July 2012 settlement agreement between defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Seiya-ku Co., Teikoku Pharma USA (collectively “Endo defendants”) and defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “defendants”), which terminated Watson’s patent litigation lawsuit against the Endo defendants in exchange for the provision of brand-name Lidoderm patches to Watson and giving Watson a period of exclusivity to market its generic version of Lidoderm patches without competition from the Endo defendants’ generic patch. 1 Following my prior Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the End-Payor Plaintiffs (EPPs) and the Government Employees Health Organization (GEHA) filed Second Amended Complaints (SACs) on December 19, 2014. Dkt Nos. 22, 23. 2 Defendants move to dismiss specific state law antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

Each state’s statutes and case law, to the extent the latter exists, must be…