Copaxone

Plaintiffs, who are director purchasers of Teva’s brand drug, Copaxone, have brought claims against Teva related to their practices concerning Copaxone, which is used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in a multi-faceted scheme to suppress lower-priced, generic competition to Copaxone. This scheme included: (i) entering into exclusionary contracts guaranteeing that pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) would exclude generic Copaxone from their formularies and specialty pharmacies would only dispense brand Copaxone instead of generic versions, (ii) implementing a “Dispense as Written” campaign based on representations to physicians that generic Copaxone was less effective than the brand, and (iii) paying millions in kickbacks to charitable foundations with the intention that the “donations” would be used to subsidize patient out of pocket costs for brand Copaxone only. Plaintiffs allege that Teva’s anticompetitive scheme began in 2015 and caused drug purchasers to overpay for Copaxone up through the present.

Plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (for exclusionary conduct and an overarching monopolization scheme) and for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 7, 2022. Soon thereafter, complaints were filed against Teva on behalf of third-party payors, who similarly alleged that Teva’s anticompetitive scheme caused them to overpay for Copaxone. The Court ordered that the cases be consolidated and coordinated on April 6, 2022, and Teva filed motions to dismiss the complaints on June 15, 2022. On February 27, 2025, the Special Master appointed to this case recommended that much of Teva’s motion to dismiss should be denied and the Plaintiffs’ case should proceed in large measure. In particular, the Special Master recommended that the RICO claim should be dismissed, but that the Sherman Act claims should be allowed to proceed with certain minor exceptions. Following that decision, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint seeking to include allegations regarding a narrowed portion of one category of alleged conduct that was recommended for dismissal (relating to Plaintiff’s kickback allegations), based on additional discovery that the Plaintiffs had received after the filing of their initial Complaint. A motion to dismiss that Amended Complaint based on those additional allegations is now pending. Otherwise, the parties are currently engaged in discovery, including depositions. The parties’ exchange of expert reports will proceed following the conclusion of discovery.