Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

August 21, 2019, Decided; August 21, 2019, Filed

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB




This pay-for-delay case involves allegations that the Defendants settled patent litigation over the ADHD drug Intuniv on anticompetitive terms. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") are parents and caretakers who purchased Intuniv (the brand name for extended release guanfacine hydrochloride) or generic Intuniv1 for a child's or ward's medical needs. They claim that the settlement agreement between brand Intuniv manufacturer Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. (together, "Shire") and generic Intuniv manufacturer Actavis Holdco US Inc. and Actavis Elizabeth LLC (together, "Actavis" and collectively with Shire, "Defendants") improperly delayed competition for both brand Intuniv and generic Intuniv, thereby causing them to pay an inflated price for the drug. See generally [ECF No. 39 ("Consolidated Complaint" or "Consol. Compl.")]. The IPPs seek to represent two classes of consumers who were allegedly overcharged for Intuniv because of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct: a nationwide class and a class of consumers from the twenty-six jurisdictions that have Illinois Brick repealer laws.2

Before the Court are the IPPs' [*4]  motion for class certification [ECF No. 146], the IPPs' motion to exclude the opinions of Defendants' expert, Professor James W. Hughes ("Prof. Hughes") [ECF No. 175], and Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of the IPPs' expert, Professor Meredith Rosenthal ("Prof. Rosenthal") [ECF No. 163]. For the reasons explained herein, the motions are DENIED.


This background presumes the truth of the allegations in the Consolidated Complaint. The Court's order on Defendants' motion to dismiss contains a more complete summary of the facts alleged. See Picone v. Shire PLC, No. 16-CV-12396-ADB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178150, 2017 WL 4873506, at *1-3 (D. Mass. Oct. 20, 2017).

A. Patent Litigation and Anticompetitive Settlement

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141643 *; 2019-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,903; 2019 WL 3947262


Subsequent History: Reconsideration denied by In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig. (Indirect Purchasers), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192468 (D. Mass., Nov. 6, 2019)

Prior History: In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207545 (D. Mass., Dec. 10, 2018)


brand, consumers, uninjured, estimate, overcharge, certification, anticompetitive, coupon, prescriptions, co-payment, antitrust, out-of-pocket, predominate, settlement, reliable, Patents, manufacturer, methodology, minimis, Consolidated, loyalists, maximums, users

Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Prerequisites for Class Action, Predominance, Superiority, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Testimony, Qualifications, Antitrust & Trade Law, Procedural Matters, Class Members