In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

INTRODUCTION

17 In this antitrust action arising from an alleged reverse-payment settlement of a patent 18 infringement suit between brand and generic marketers of the diabetes drug Glumetza, 19 defendants move to dismiss the complaints as untimely. Because defendants actively continued 20 and fraudulently concealed their conspiracy, plaintiffs’ complaints are timely, at least at the 21 pleading stage. Defendants’ remaining standing, merits, and joinder arguments partially 22 succeed. Thus, the motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

STATEMENT

24 1. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. 25 This case arises from the combined patent and pharmaceutical-regulatory framework 26 established by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 27 1585, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., 35 U.S.C § 156 et seq. More commonly known as the “Hatch- Waxman Act,” it implements a scheme of interlocking incentives to encourage timely introduction of low-cost generics into the pharmaceutical market yet still drive new drug development. Several prior cases summarize the Hatch-Waxman scheme. See, e.g., FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136, 142–144 (2013); In re…