In re HIV Antitrust Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 STALEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

v. TEVA’S MOTION TO DISMISS

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Docket No. 740 Defendants.

12 13 The above-referenced antitrust case was initially brought by indirect purchasers – also known as end-payor plaintiffs or “EPPs” – of certain cART drugs manufactured and/or sold by Gilead, BMS, and Janssen. After the EPPs filed their case, different cases were brought by direct purchasers – also known as direct-payor plaintiffs or “DPPs.” • Two of the DPP suits are class actions: the named plaintiffs are FWK and KPH, and they sued only Gilead and BMS. They did not sue Teva. See Nos. C-20-6793 EMC, C-20-6961 EMC. • Two more DPP suits are not class actions: the plaintiffs are Walgreen et al. and CVS et al., and they have sued Gilead, BMS, and Teva. See Nos. C-21-7374 EMC and C-21-7378 EMC.2…