Drugmaker Wins $70.5M After Fed Judge Says Generic Sales Were Blocked
"The court finds Sandoz’s lost profits following the launch of generic treprostinil were a natural and probable consequence of United Therapeutics' breach of its promise," U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti said.
November 12, 2024 at 06:02 PM
4 minute read
A New Jersey federal court awarded the drug manufacturer Sandoz more than $70 million in its lawsuit against United Therapeutics after finding that the defendant blocked the sale of a generic hypertension drug.
Sandoz filed suit in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking damages for breach of contract in Sandoz v. United Therapeutics, a lawsuit against the brand-name manufacturer and seller of a hypertension drug called treprostinil. After a three-day bench trial in May, U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti found that Sandoz lost more than $137 million in profits following the launch of the generic version of treprostinil as “a natural and probable consequence” of United Therapeutics breaching a promise it made under a 2015 settlement agreement, according to court documents.
“The court finds Sandoz’s lost profits following the launch of generic treprostinil were a natural and probable consequence of UTC’s breach of its promise under the 2015 Settlement Agreement ‘not to take any action directly or indirectly to prevent, delay, limit, or otherwise restrict the launch, manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation or distribution of the Sandoz ANDA Product in the United States,’” Martinotti said.
The complaint named United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical ASD, the developers of the pump required for delivering treprostinil. The six-count complaint included claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act and restraint of trade under New Jersey and North Carolina law, among other claims.
United Therapeutics developed and launched the brand-name drug Remodulin in 2002. Sandoz filed an abbreviated new drug application in 2011 with the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval for the generic version, treprostinil. United Therapeutics sued Sandoz, claiming that the generic version infringed on its patent.
A settlement was reached in September 2015, which stated that United Therapeutics would not take any action to prevent Sandoz from issuing its generic drug. However, the complaint alleged that after United Therapeutics learned that Sandoz was ready to launch treprostinil, the company asked Smiths Medical to execute agreements with specialty pharmacies to restrict the sale of cartridges used in the pump to Remodulin only. Smiths Medical agreed and allowed United Therapeutics to approve every cartridge sale it made to specialty pharmacies until those pharmacies agreed to limit the sale of cartridges using Remodulin.
Martinotti awarded damages in the principal amount of $61.6 million, plus prejudgment interest of $8.9 million, on its breach-of-contract claim against United Therapeutics.
An Alston & Bird team, including partners Matthew Kent, Jonathan Parente, Steven Penaro, Andrew Hatchett and Jenny Kramer, represented Sandoz. The attorneys did not return messages seeking comment.
Martinotti noted that Sandoz was required to meet a reasonable certainty standard, which necessitated proof that the damages were a “natural and probable consequence” of the breach. Second, a party must demonstrate an appropriate method for quantifying that loss.
After holding that United Therapeutics met the proof standard on the first prong, Martinotti evaluated the method for quantifying the loss by turning to the expert testimony presented at trial. Dr. Anupam Jena, an economist, physician and professor at Harvard Medical School, testified that for Sandoz and was found to be credible and reliable, according to Martinotti. United Therapeutics’ expert, Dr. Sean Nicholson, a health care economist and professor at Cornell University, provided an analysis of Jena’s damages calculations but was deemed less credible by the court.
After issuing findings of fact in a September decision, Martinotti instructed the parties to confer and to submit a proposed form of judgment. However, the two sides could not come to an agreement. Sandoz wanted a principal amount of nearly $63.5 million and prejudgment interest of more than $17 million. United Therapeutics proposed more than $61.6 million in principal and prejudgment interest of nearly $3.5 million.
Martinotti settled on a principal amount of $61,643,25 and prejudgment interest of $8,956,749 in his Nov. 1 order.
United Therapeutics was represented by Stephen M. Orlofsky and Michael R. Darbee of Blank Rome, who declined to comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250