In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
Case No. 19-cv-02573-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SET-ASIDE
ORDER
10 Docket No. 2080
12 13 This antitrust suit began in 2019, with a complaint filed by indirect purchasers of HIV drugs manufactured by, inter alia, Gilead. As the case progressed, other indirect purchasers filed suit as did direct purchasers. By the time of the trial of the reverse payment claims in 2023,1 there were five groups of plaintiffs: the EPPs (representing the indirect purchaser classes), the IHPPs (essentially, indirect purchaser opt-outs), United (also an indirect purchaser opt-out)2, the DPPs (representing the direct purchaser classes), and the Retailer Plaintiffs (essentially, direct purchaser opt-outs). Some of these plaintiffs asserted claims against Gilead alone (e.g., the EPPs), and some asserted claims against both Gilead and Teva (e.g., the Retailer Plaintiffs). …