Motley Rice - Attorneys at Law
Navigation
Main navigation
Motley Rice represents clients across many areas.
Learn about the cases Motley Rice is actively representing clients in or cases that we've litigated previously.
Ozempic® users are filing lawsuits for vision loss, ileus, and other serious injuries.
Lawsuits allege talcum powder use is linked to reproductive organ cancer for women.
Lawsuits allege toxic heavy metals in baby food damage infants’ brain development.
Social media companies are being sued over alleged teenage mental health harms.
Meta is being sued for teenage mental health harms allegedly caused by Facebook and Instagram.
Women hurt by birth control drugs and devices may be eligible to sue over their injuries.
Studies link hair relaxers to uterine/ovarian cancer. Lawsuits seek to hold companies accountable.
Family members may have been eligible to file Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits.
People are filing gastroparesis lawsuits after using drugs like Ozempic®, Wegovy® and Mounjaro™.
While litigation can take years to complete from start to finish, our firm is always working for our clients, no matter how long it takes or how hard it gets.
Motley Rice attorneys and support personnel are dedicated to representing clients and working with co-counsel located throughout the United States and around the world.
Comprehensive, up-to-date news on the issues surrounding the litigation areas of Motley Rice LLC.
News, Learn about the latest happenings from lawsuits and other events impacting plaintiffs.
Motley Rice lawyers share their insights on litigation and more to inform people exploring their legal options.
We are accepting new cases
Generic Drug Antitrust Class Actions
Pharmaceutical companies that delay generic market entry through “reverse payment” settlement agreements may overcharge consumers and health insurers $3.5 billion every year.
The Legal Team
Some brand pharmaceutical drug companies delay generic market entry through “reverse payment” settlement agreements with generic competition. These agreements can have a profound effect as generic entry typically causes consumer and health insurer prices to drop 40 to 80 percent within the first six to nine According to a Federal Trade Commission study to a Federal Trade Commission study this practice may overcharge consumers and health insurers by approximately $3.5 billion every year.
Wondering what happens when you submit a form or give us a call? We spend time gathering information from you, and your initial call is always free.
or call: 1.800.768.4026
Antitrust lawyers with Motley Rice have been challenging these practices for more than 16 years on behalf of health insurers and consumers in an effort to hold prescription drug manufacturers accountable and deter such conduct in the future. Our antitrust team has experience in pursuing antitrust class actions related to pharmaceutical drugs and is currently involved in the following cases:
Plaintiffs allege that Endo Pharmaceuticals and Actavis Inc. entered into an unlawful “reverse payment agreement” to delay generic competition for the drug Lidoderm. Endo allegedly gave between $96 million and $240 million worth of free Lidoderm branded product to induce Actavis to delay market entry for one year. Lidoderm annual U.S. sales are approximately $1.3 billion.
Plaintiffs allege that Warner Chilcott (“WC”), Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. entered into unlawful “reverse payment agreements” to delay generic entry of WC’s oral contraceptive – Loestrin.
Plaintiffs allege that Abbie Vie Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals entered a prohibited “reverse payment agreement” in which the branded manufacturer paid the generic to stay off the market for eight years. Niaspan annual U.S. sales are approximately $1 billion.
Plaintiffs allege that Cephalon unlawfully protected its Provigil monopoly through a series of agreements with four generic manufacturers in which the generic companies were paid over $300 million to delay market entry for six years. Provigil annual U.S. sales are approximately $1.1 billion.
Plaintiffs allege that Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. and others filed sham patent litigations and entered into “reverse payment agreements” to induce generic companies to stay out of the market.
Plaintiffs allege that Reckitt Benckiser Inc. created an anticompetitive scheme to keep Suboxone generic rivals off the market. The alleged scheme involved the introduction of a film version of Suboxone and shifting the pill customer base to this new market. The alleged shift, or “product hop,” occurred shortly before the generics were preparing to come to market.
Connect with an Attorney1.800.768.4026
Call us or fill out our online form with the details of your potential case.
Our team reviews your information to assess your potential case.
Talk with us about next steps.