govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_12-cv-00995-2

NOTFORPUBLICATION
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICTOFNEWJERSEY
INRE:LAMICTALINDIRECT
PURCHASERANDANTITRUST
CONSUMERLITIGATIONOPINION
Civ.No.12-cv-00995
THISDOCUMENTRELATESTO:
ALLACTIONS
Walls,SeniorDistrictJudge
Inthisputativeclassaction,Plaintiffs,purchasersofthedruglamotrigine,challengethe
legalityofapatentlitigationsettlementbetweentheDefendantpharmaceuticalcompanies.
PlaintiffsnowmovetocertifyadirectpurchaserclasspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.23.ECFNo.
371.DecidedwithoutoralargumentunderFed.R.Civ.P.78,Plaintiffs’motionisgranted.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
Thismatterhasbeenlitigatedatlength,andafullfactualandproceduralbackgroundis
detailedintheCourt’sDecember6,2012opinion.ECFNo.105.Directlyrelevanttothismotion:
Plaintiffs’theoryofliabilityderivesfromDefendants’allegedlyanticompetitivebehaviorand
affectstwosubsetsofdirectpurchaserplaintiffswhosustaineddamagestherefrom.Insum,
PlaintiffsallegethatDefendantSmithKlineBeechamCorporation(d/b/aGlaxoSmithKline)
(“GSK”)enteredintoacontractwithDefendantTevaPharmaceuticalIndustriesLtd.(andits
subsidiaryTevaPharmaceuticalsUSA,Inc.)(“Teva”)thatcausedantitrustinjury.Specifically,
duringlitigationbetweenDefendants,JudgeBissellofthisDistrictruledfromthebenchthat
TevahadshownthatatleastoneclaimrelatingtothepatentforLamictal—thebrandname
epilepsyandbipolardisorderdrugmarketedbyGSK—wasinvalid,whichstronglyindicatedthat
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 1 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
Tevawouldbesuccessfulontherestofitsclaimsagainstthepatent.ClassActionComplaint
(“CAC”),ECFNo.55¶56.Shortlythereafter,GSKandTevareachedasettlementagreement
whereinGSKmadetwolargeconcessionstoTeva.First,Tevawaspermittedtosellgeneric
lamotriginechewables—separateandapartfromLamictaltabletsandamuchsmallerrelative
shareofthemarket’—threeyearsbeforeGSK’spatentwassettoexpire.Id.¶70-72.Second,
GSKagreednottolaunchanauthorizedgeneric(“AG”)untilsixmonthsaftertheexpirationof
thepatent(the“no-AGagreement”),givingTevaasignificantrunningstartinthelamotrigine
marketshare.Id.¶J76-77.
Plaintiffsclaimtwosubsetsofdamagesresultingtothedirectpurchaserputativeclass
fromDefendants’actions.First,brandpurchaserswereharmedbecausebutforthesettlement
agreement,theLamictalpatentwouldhavebeeninvalidatedandTevawouldhavebeenableto
sellgenericlamotriginethreeyearsearlier,whichwouldhaveallowedLarnictalpurchasersto
eitherbuyLamictalatalowerprice(basedonsimpleeconomics)orsimplypurchasethegeneric
atalowercost.Id.¶112-114;132.Second,genericpurchaserswereharmedbecausebutforthe
settlementagreement,GSKwouldhavenotbeenboundbytheno-AGagreementandwould
haveproducedtheirowngenericsixmonthsearlier,whichwouldhavedroppedpricesingeneric
lamotrigineacrosstheboard.Id.¶149.Theseintotalaretheallegeddamagessufferedbythe
directpurchaserclass.
LEGALSTANDARD
Toobtainclassactioncertification,plaintiffsmustestablishthatallfourprerequisitesof
FederalRuleofCivilProcedure23(a)aremet,aswellasatleastonepartoffederalRuleof
CivilProcedure23(b).Neal(Baby)byKanterv.Casey,43F.3d48,55(3dCir.1994).Rule23(a)
Boththetabletsandchewableswerecoveredbythesamepatent.Id.
2
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 2 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
requiresashowingof(1)numerosity;(2)commonality;(3)typicality;and(4)adequacyof
representation.Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a):
Oneormoremembersofaclassmaysueorbesuedasrepresentativepartiesonbehalfof
allonlyif(1)theclassissonumerousthatjoinderofallmembersisimpracticable,(2)
therearequestionsoflaworfactcommontoalloftheclass,(3)theclaimsordefensesof
therepresentativepartiesaretypicaloftheclaimsordefensesoftheclass,and(4)the
representativepartieswillfairlyandadequatelyprotecttheinterestsoftheclass.
“Numerosityrequiresafindingthattheputativeclassissonumerousthatjoinderofall
membersisimpracticable.”Newtonv.MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&$mith,Inc.,259f.3d
154,182(3dCir.2001);Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a)(1).
Tosatisfythecommonalityrequirement,Plaintiffsmustshowtheexistenceofatleast
onequestionoflaworfactcommontotheentireclass.SeeInrethePrudentialIns.Co.ofAm.
SalesPracticeLitig.,148f.3d283,310(3dCir.1998).“Allthatisrequiredisthatthelitigation
involvesomecommonquestionsandthatplaintiffsallegeharmunderthesamelegaltheory.”
BabyNeal,43F.3dat58.SeealsoHassinev.Jeffes,$46F.2d169,176—77(3dCir.198$)
(holdingthatitisnotnecessarythatallputativeclassmembersshareidenticalclaims).
Thetypicalityrequirementisdesignedtoaligntheinterestsoftheclassandtheclass
representativessothatthelatterwillworkforthebenefitoftheentireclassthroughthepursuitof
theirowngoals.SeeInrePrudentialIns,Co.,142F.3dat311;seealsoHoxworthv.Blinder,
Robinson&Co.,Inc.,980F.2d912,923(3dCir.1992).
Finally,Rule23alsorequiresthat“therepresentativepartieswillfairlyandadequately
protecttheinterestsoftheclass.”Fed.R.Civ.P.23(a)(4).Butwheretheclassincludesmembers
withdivergentinterestsbecausethetimeofclassmembershipisafactor,therepresentativesmay
notadequatelyrepresenttheclass.SeeBogosianv.GulfOilCorp.,561F.2d434,449(3d
Cir.1977);Millerv.HygradeFoodProds.Corp.,19$F.R.D.63$(E.D.Pa.2001).
3
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 3 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
IftherequirementsofRule23(a)aresatisfied,thecourtmustalsofindthattheclass
actionismaintainableunderoneofthesectionsofRule23(b).Applicablehere,certification
underRule23(b)(3)ispermittedwhenthecourt“findsthatthequestionsoflaworfactcommon
toclassmemberspredominateoveranyquestionsaffectingonlyindividualmembers,andthata
classactionissuperiortootheravailablemethodsforfairlyandefficientlyadjudicatingthe
controversy.”InreHydrogenPeroxideAntitrustLitig.,552F.3d305,310(3dCir.2008)(quoting
FederalRuleofCivilProcedure23(b)(3)).“ThetwinrequirementsofRule23(b)(3)areknown
aspredominanceandsuperiority.”Id.
Inmovingforclasscertification,plaintiffshavetheburdenofprovingbya
preponderanceoftheevidencethatalltherequirementsofRule23aremet.Gen.Tel.Co.ofthe
Southwestv.Falcon,457U.S.147,161,102$.Ct.2364,72L.Ed.2d740(1982);Hydrogen
Peroxide,552F.3dat307.TheSupremeCourthasemphasizedthatRule23doesnotsetfortha
merepleadingstandard;theplaintiffmustinfactprovethattherule’srequirementshavebeen
satisfied.Wal-MartStores,Inc.v.Dukes,564U.S.338,349,131S.Ct.2541,2551,180L.Ed.
2d374(2011).Inconsideringamotionforclasscertification,thecourtmustconductarigorous
analysis,whichwillfrequently“entailsomeoverlapwiththemeritsoftheplaintiffsunderlying
claims.”Id.(quotingfalcon,457U.S.at160,102S.Ct.2364).“Aclasscertificationdecision
requiresathoroughexaminationofthefactualandlegalallegations.”Newton,259F.3dat166.
“Thepropertaskofthetrialcourtistoconsidercarefullyallrelevantevidenceandmakea
definitivedeterminationthattherequirementsofRule23havebeenmetbeforecertifyinga
class.”InreBloodReagentsAntitrustLitig..783F.3d183,187(3dCir.2015)(internal
quotationsomitted).
4
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 4 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
TheRule23“rigorousanalysismayrequireadistrictcourttoaddress,atleastinpart,the
meritsofaplaintiffsunderlyingclaimbecauseclassdeterminationgenerallyinvolves
considerationsthatareenmeshedinthefactualandlegalissuescomprisingtheplaintiffscause
ofaction.”Nealev.VolvoCarsofN.Am.,LLC,794F.3d353,370(3dCir.2015)(internal
quotationsomitted).Butthecourt’sauthoritytoexaminethemeritsofacaseonamotionfor
classcertificationshouldnotbeoverstated.Whileadistrictcourtmaydelvebeyondthe
pleadingstodeterminewhethertheplaintiffhassatisfiedRule23’srequirements,itmaynot
inquireintothemeritsinordertodeterminewhethertheelementsofeachclaimmaybesatisfied.
Sullivanv.D.B.Investments,Inc.,667F.3d273,305(3dCir.2011).“Acourtmayinquire
whethertheelementsofassertedclaimsarecapableofproofthroughcommonevidence,but
lacksauthoritytoadjudgethelegalvalidityorsoundnessofthesubstantiveelementsofasserted
claims.”Id.Consistentwiththisunderstanding,theThirdCircuithasheldthatfactualfindingsof
thecourtonaRule23motionarerestrictedtothequestionofwhetheraclassmaybecertified
and“donotbindthefactfinderonthemerits.”HydrogenPeroxide,552F.3dat31$.IftheCourt
findsthattheactionwarrantscertification,itsordermust“definetheclassandtheclassclaims,
issues,ordefenses....”Fed.R.Civ.P.23(c)(1)(B).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffsseektocertifythefollowingclass:
AllpersonsorentitiesintheUnitedStatesanditsterritorieswhopurchased
LamictalTabletsdirectlyfromGSK,orwhopurchasedagenericversionof
lamotriginetabletsdirectlyfromTeva,atanytimeduringtheClassPeriodfrom
February17,200$untilJanuary22,2009(the“Class”).2
2ExcludedfromtheClassareDefendantsandtheirofficers,directors,management,employees,subsidiaries,and
affiliates,andallfederalgovernmentalentities.
5
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 5 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
ECFNo.371-1at¶1.Theirproposedorderpremisesliabilityoncommonissuessuchas
whether:“DefendantsconspiredtodelayandsuppressgenericcompetitiontoLamictalTablets;”
“thereversepaymentssuppressedgenericcompetitiontoLamictalTabletsbydelayingthe
launchofTeva’sgenericandOSK’sauthorizedgenericLamictalTablets;”and“absentthe
reversepayments,TevawouldhavelauncheditsgenericversionofLamictalTabletsandG$K
wouldhavelaunchedauthorizedgenericLamictalTablets.”Id.at¶3(b),(e),(g).Tocertifythe
class,thisCourtmustconfirmthattherequirementsofRule23aremet.
1.Numerosity
Tobecertified,theclassmustbe“sonumerousthatjoinderofallmembersis
impracticable.”InreCmty.BankofN.Virginia,622F.3d275,291(3dCir.2010),asamended
(Oct.20,2010).“[G]enerallyifthenamedplaintiffdemonstratesthatthepotentialnumberof
plaintiffsexceeds40,thefirstprongofRule23(a)hasbeenmet.”Stewartv.Abraham,275F.3d
220,226—27(3dCir.2001).
PlaintiffsandDefendantsdisputehowmanymembersoftheclasstherereallyare.
Plaintiffsseektocertifyaclassof65directpurchasers,whotheyarguearedispersed
geographicallyinamannerthatmakesjoinderimpracticable.MotionforClassCertification
(“Mot.Br.”)at20-21.DefendantsarguethatbeforetheCourtareactuallytwoseparate
subclassesmasqueradingasone.TheycontendthatPlaintiffs’theoryofliabilitymeansthe65
memberputativeclassisreally“32brandpurchaserspursuingaswitchingtheory”combined
with“33generic-onlypurchasers.”OppositiontoMot.(“Resp.”)at2-3;27-28.Butwhether
Plaintiffs’theoryofliabilitycorrespondstoitsdamagesmodelisaquestionsavedfora
predominanceanalysis,notnumerosity.SeeComcastCorp.v.Behrend,569U.S.27,34,1335.
Ct.1426,1433,185L.Ed.2d515(2013)(findingthatbecause“respondents’modelfallsfar
6
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 6 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
shortofestablishingthatdamagesarecapableofmeasurementonaclasswidebasis...[they]
cannotshowRule23(b)(3)predominance”).IftheCourtfindsthatpredominanceisnotmetat
thatstage,itcanthenentertainsubclasses,whichwouldrespectivelyneedtomeetallofRule
23’srequirements,includingnumerosity.SeeMarcusv.BMJJ7ofN.Am.,LLC,687F.3d583,595
(3dCir.2012).Defendantsfinallyarguethat“theclassisactuallysmallerthan65companiesdue
tomergersamongmembers,”resultinginaclassofeitherfifty-threeorforty-eightintotal.Resp.
at28-29.AsPlaintiffspointout,classesofeither65,53,or48areallgreaterinnumberthan40,
andtheThirdCircuithasrecognizedageneralrulethatatsuchnumbernumerosityhasbeenmet.
SeeStewart,275F.3dat226—27.DefendantshavenotgiventheCourtanyreasontodeviate
fromthisrule.Plaintiffs’proposedclassissufficientlynumeroustomeettherequirementsof
Rule23(a)(1).
2.Commonality
Plaintiffsclaimthattheirputativeclassmembersshareatleastonequestionoflaworfact
sufficienttomeetRule23(a)(2).Plaintiffsarecorrectthatcommonalityis“easilymet.”BingLi
v.AeternaZentaris,Inc.,324F.R.D.331,339(D.N.J.201$).Because“thecommonalityinquiry
issubsumedintothepredominanceinquiry,”Reyesv.Netdeposit,LLC,$02F.3d469,486(3d
Cir.2015),thedeeperunderlyingquestionsastotheprevalenceofcommonissuesasopposedto
individualonesisbettersuitedforpredominanceanalysis.Plaintiffs’classhasasufficient
commonquestion—didDefendantscommitanantitrustviolationresultinginclasswideinjury—
tomeettherequirementsofRule23(a)(2).
3.TypicalityandAdequacy
TheNamedPlaintiffs’claimsaretypicaloftheclasssufficienttomeet23(a)(3)’s“low
threshold.”Newton,259F.3dat183.Likewise,DirectPurchasers’classcounselandNamed
7
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 7 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
Plaintiffsarerespectivelyexperiencedandfreeofpotentialconflicts.Mot.Br.at25-26.
Defendantsdonotcontesteitheroftheseprongsintheirbriefing;Rule23(a)(3)and(4)aremet.
4.Predominance
Rule23(b)(3)’spredominancerequirementdemandsthat“proposedclassesare
sufficientlycohesivetowarrantadjudicationbyrepresentation.”Amchemv.Windsor,521U.S.
591,624(1997).“[T]hefocusofthepredominanceinquiryisonwhetherthedefendant’sconduct
wascommonastoalloftheclassmembers,andwhetheralloftheclassmemberswereharmed
bythedefendant’sconduct.”Sullivan,667F.3dat29$.Aplaintiffmust“demonstratethat[each]
elementof[eachlegalclaim]iscapableofproofattrialthroughevidencethatiscommontothe
classratherthanindividualtoitsmembers.”HydrogenPeroxide,552F.3dat311.
i.PenetrationRate
DefendantsmakeanumberofargumentsastowhyPlaintiffsfailtomeetpredominance,
particularlyinwaysthatwouldviolatetheRulesEnablingAct.“TheRulesEnablingActgrants
theSupremeCourtthepowertocreatefederalrulesofpracticeandprocedurewiththerestriction
thattheserules‘shallnotabridge,enlarge,ormodifyanysubstantiveright.”Knepperv.RiteAid
Corp.,675F.3d249,264(3dCir.2012)(quoting2$U.S.C.§2072(b)).“TheRulesEnablingAct
underscorestheneedforcaution.As[theSupremeCourt]saidinAmchem[Products,Inc.v.
Windsor,521U.S.591(1997)],noreadingof[Rule23]canignoretheAct’smandatethatrules
ofprocedureshallnotabridge,enlargeormodifyanysubstantiveright.”Ortizv.fibreboard
Corp.,527U.S.$15(1999)(internalquotationsomitted).
DefendantsfirstcontendthatthepenetrationrateproposedbyPlaintiffs’expert,Dr.
Lamb,“doesnotfitPlaintiffs’theoryofliabilityandusestheclass-actionmechanismto
$
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 8 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
artificiallyinflatedamages”incontradictionoftheSupremeCourt’sholdinginComcast.Resp.
at14.UnderComcast:
[A]modelpurportingtoserveasevidenceofdamagesinthisclassactionmust
measureonlythosedamagesattributabletothattheory.Ifthemodeldoesnoteven
attempttodothat,itcannotpossiblyestablishthatdamagesaresusceptibleof
measurementacrosstheentireclassforpurposesofRule23(b)(3).Calculations
neednotbeexact...butattheclass-certificationstage(asattrial),anymodel
supportingaplaintiffsdamagescasemustbeconsistentwithitsliabilitycase,
particularlywithrespecttotheallegedanticompetitiveeffectofthe
violation...AndforpurposesofRule23,courtsmustconductarigorousanalysis
todeterminewhetherthatisso.
569U.S.at35(internalquotationsomitted).
DefendantsarguethatPlaintiffs’liabilitytheoryincludesthenotionthat“some
purchasersboughtLamictal,andifgenericlarnotriginehadbeenavailableearlier,theywould
haveswitchedaportionofthosepurchasestothegeneric.”Resp.at15.Thisisreferredto
throughoutthebriefingasthe“switchingtheory,”whichallegedlyresultedindamagestothose
whocouldhave—butwerenotableto—switchfrombrandnameLamictaltoageneric
alternative(alsoknownas“brand-genericdamages”).Defendantscontendthistheoryisnotin
accordwithPlaintiffs’damagesmodel,which“calculate[s]apenetrationratebasedonthe
amountoflamotriginethatalldirectpurchasersbought,notjustbrandpurchasers.”Id.at16.A
genericpenetrationratereferstothe“[percentage]ofallunitsthatwouldhavebeenpurchasedas
agenericproduct.”InreCardizernCDAntitrustLitig.,200F.R.D.297,322(E.D.Mich.2001).
DefendantsargueDr.Lamb’sconcessionthatpurchasesmadebygeneric-onlybuyers“wouldn’t
giverisetoanybrand-genericdamages”solidifiestheircontentionthatthismismatchisfatalto
Comcast’sedict,andleadstoadamagesdifferentialofover$480millionwhentreblingis
considered.Resp.at16-17.
9
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 9 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
TheCourtbelievesDefendantshavethebetterargument,butnotentirelyandnotenough
tocreateseriouscertificationissues.Dr.Lambcreatedaclasswidedamagesmodelbycombining
thedamagesforbrand-genericdirectpurchasersandgeneric-genericdirectpurchasers.3See
LambDep.at232:13-233:6.Thepenetrationrateforbrand-genericdamages,however,takes
genericpurchasersintoaccountbecauseitisdefinedbyDr.Lambas“thetotalEUsofgeneric
lamotriginetabletdividedbythetotalEUsoftotallamotriginetabletsineachmonthafterthe
actualgenericentrydate.”LambReportat¶106.Thereisnosoundreasonforthebrand-generic
damagesmodeltouseapenetrationratethatconsidersgeneric-genericdata(or,atleast,nogood
reasoningputforwardbyPlaintiffsandDr.Lamb).Dr.Lambbrushesthiscriticismoffas
conflatingclasswidedamageswithbrand-genericandgeneric-genericdamages,contendingthat
hisjobwastodetermineclasswidedamagesonly.LambReplyat¶$2.Thisisnotso.Dr.
Lamb’sreportfound“theamountofaggregatedamagessufferedbyproposedClass
members...undertheNo-PaymentSettlementScenarioandtheLitigationSuccessScenariotobe
$1.09billionand$1.62billion,respectively.”LambReportat¶12(d).Hegetsthosenumbersby
specificallyaddingthedamagestotalsofthebrand-genericdamagesandthegeneric-generic
damages.FromDr.Lamb’sownreport:
Table3
DamagesbyBut-ForGenericEntryDate
DamagesOctober6,2007Septener1,2006
Brand-Generic$761,651,015$1,195,231,856
Generic-Generic$325,432,929$426,731,999
Total$1,087,083,944$1,621,963,855
Source:WACdata&transaction-leeIsalesdata.
Discussedinfra,“generic-generic”classmembersrefertodirectpurchasersofgenericlamotriginewho,butforthe
allegedno-AGreversepayment,wouldhavepaidlessduetomoremarketcompetition.
10
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 10 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
Id.at110(Table3).
WhiletheCourtfindsthatthismethodologicalerrorissomewhatsignificanttoestablisha
precisedamagescalculation,itdoesnotbelieveittorisetothelevelofdefeatingpredominance
orviolatingtheRulesEnablingAct.First,Dr.LambandPlaintiffshaverecognizedthisinput
discrepancyinflatesdamagesbyroughly10-17%,andthatitcanbefixedrathereasily.ReplyBr.
at12-13.Second,brand-genericdamagesarenotsolelydependentonbrandpurchaserswho
wouldhaveotherwiseswitchedtoageneric,butalsoonthecredibleeconomicanalysisthat
Lamictalpricesthemselveswouldhavedroppedifagenerichadenteredthemarket,anda
generalizedpenetrationrateisnotaproblemforthatlattersubsetofbrand-genericdamages.See
Cmpl.¶J112-114.Third,imperfectdamagescalculationsaremoreoftenforgivenintheantitrust
context.SeeInreElec.BooksAntitrustLitig.,No.11MD2293DLC,2014WL1282293,at*16
(S.D.N.Y.Mar.28,2014)(statingthat“theSupremeCourthaslongtaughtthatdamageissuesin
antitrustcasesarerarelysusceptibleofthekindofconcrete,detailedproofofinjurywhichis
availableinothercontext”)(internalquotationsandbracketsomitted).Fourth,themodelisstill
soundonthewholeinawaythataccuratelytracesPlaintiffs’theoryofliabilitytodamages.The
SupremeCourtinComcastdealtwithfourdifferentalternativetheoriesofliabilitythatcould
leadtodamages.579U.S.at27.Thisisnotthecasewhen“themodelassumedthevalidityofall
fourtheoriesofantitrustimpact”and“didnotattributedamagestoanyoneparticulartheoryof
anticompetitiveimpact.”Id.at36-37.Thisisalsonotamodelthatdoesnot“evenattemptto”
“measureonlythosedamagesattributabletothattheory.”Id.at35.Here,thereisonetheoryof
liabilitycorrespondingtoonemodelofdamages,withthemodelsimplylackinginonerespect.
Thisisnotaninstanceof“tn]odamagesmodel,nopredominance,noclasscertification.”Inre
RailfreightfuelSttrchargeAntitrustLitig.-MDLNo.1869,725F.3d244,253(D.C.Cir.2013).
11
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 11 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
ThatPlaintiffswilllikelyhavetoamendanotherwisesoundmodelisnotenoughtooverridethe
benefitsoftheclassdeviceorcauseanyrightsdeprivationtoDefendants.SeeInreLidoderm
AntitrttstLitig.,No.14-MD-02521-WHO,2017WL679367,at*12(N.D.Cal.Feb.21,2017)
(findingthefact“thattheexpertsdisputewhattheappropriateinputsshouldbedoesnot
underminetheapproachorthereliabilityof[the]model”).SeealsoInreNexiumAntitrustLitig.,
777F.3d9,32(1stCir.2015)(statingthat“the[RulesEnabling]Act...imposesnorequirement
attheclasscertificationstagebeyondensuringthatamethodologycanbedevelopedthatis
capableofexcludinguninjuredmembers”);Corncast,569U.S.at35(findingthat“[c]alculations
neednotbeexact”inapredominanceanalysis).Dr.Lamb’sRevisedExpertReplyReport,4and
indeedthereportsofDefendants’experts,demonstratethatamodelmatchingPlaintiffs’theory
ismorethanfeasible.
ii.UninjuredBrandPurchasers
DefendantsnextarguethatDr.Lamb’smodel“concealsthatsomebrandpurchasersdid
notswitchtolamotriginewhenitlaunchedandthussufferednoinjury.”Resp.at18.Dr.Lamb
acknowledgesthattwobrandpurchasers—H.C.PharmacyCentral,Inc.andProfessionalDrug
Co.,Inc.—didnotswitchfromLamictaltoagenericoptionafteritbecameavailable.LambDep.
Tr.at291:24-292:23.TheCourtagreeswithDr.Lamb’scontentionthatthemodelwiththose
brandpurchasersissoundbecause“onecan’tassume...thatpurchasepatternsintheactualworld
overaspecificperiodoftimetellusaboutwhatpurchasepatternswouldhavebeeninabut-for
worldwheregenericentryhappenedmuchearlier.”Id.Likewise,bothH.C.Pharmacyand
ProfessionalDrugallegedlypaidinflatedpricesforLamictalcomparedtothebutforworldwhen
See¶164(Table3).
12
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 12 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
genericsenteredthemarket.TheCourtfindsnosignificantpresenceofuninjuredbrand
purchasers.
iii.InjurytoGenericPurchasers
Defendantsnextarguethatcommonissuescannotpredominateoverindividualizedones
becausePlaintiffsrelyonaveragepricesthatdonotshowinjurytogenericpurchasers,orifso
mustbeprovedonanindividualizedbasis.Resp.at20.Specifically,Defendantsargueona
premiseinPlaintiffs’generic-generictheory,contendingthatPlaintiffs’but-forworld,where
GSKisnotforbiddenfrompursuinganauthorizedgeneric,ignoresthe“ContractingStrategy,”
wherebyGSKsimplyloweredthepricesofthebrandedLamictalasa“novel”alternativeto
authorizingagenericcompetitortoTeva’slamotrigine,whichitwasforbiddentodo.Id.
Thisargumentisonethat,inDefendants’briefing,oftengoesfarbeyondtherealmof
predominanceandwellintothemeritsofPlaintiffs’claims.“[A]courtshouldnotaddressmerits-
relatedissuesbeyondwhatisnecessarytodeterminepreliminarilywhethercertainelementswill
necessitateindividualorcommonproof.”Harnishv.WidenerUniv.Sch.ofLaw,833F.3d298,
305(3dCir.2016)(internalquotationsomitted).TheCourtwillnotaddressthemulti-leveled
microeconomicanalysisofwhateachDefendantwouldorwouldnothavepossiblydoneinthe
but-forworld,andinsteadfocusesonwhetherthepresenceoftheContractingStrategyraises
individualizedissuesthatdefeatpredominance.Defendantsmaintainthatthisisapredominance
issuebecausetheContractingStrategyforcedTevatooffergenericdirectpurchasersdiscounts
thatrangedfromroughly20%to60%.Resp.at21.DefendantsclaimthatDr.Lamb
impermissiblyaveragedthisdiscount,whichignoresthefactthatsomeindividualdirect
purchasersmayhavereceiveddiscountsthatresultedinlowerpricesthantheywouldhavepaid
13
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 13 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
inthebut-forworld,giventhatsomestudiesshowasecondgenericlowerspricesby7-14%,
whichislessthanthediscountmanydirectpurchasersreceived.Id.at22.
But“[t]heuseofaveragestodeveloptheaggregateamountofdamagesdoesnotsuggest
Plaintiffswillbeunabletoensurerecoveryisonlyforinjuredparties.”InreSolodyn
(MinocyclineHydrochloride)AntitrustLitig.,No.CV14-MD-02503,2017WL4621777,at*10
(D.Mass.Oct.16,2017).Besidesthefactthataclasscanbecertifiedwithdeminimisuninjured
parties,courtshaverightlynoted“thatapersonsuffersacognizableinjuryandisimpactedbya
price-fixingconspiracyatthemomenthepaysanantitrustovercharge,evenifthe
anticompetitiveconductatissuealsoresultsinoffsettingbenefits.”InreDelta/AirTranBaggage
FeeAntitrustLitig.,317F.R.D.675,683(N.D.Ga.2016)(statingthat“[b]ecauseofthenature
ofprice-fixing,offsettingbenefitsthatconsumersallegedlyreceivedmaynotbeusedtoreduce
anydamagesadefendantowesforitsanticompetitiveconduct.Andsuchbenefits—whichat
mostwouldaffectonlythecalculationofdamages—donotwipeawaytheantitrustinjury”);see
alsoInreNexiurn,777F.3dat27(injuryestablishedevenifclassmembersufferednodamage
becauseinjurylateroffset).Here,injuryoccurredtopotentialgenericpurchasersatthemoment
thepriceofgenericlamotriginewasartificiallyinflatedbytheno-AGagreement,evenifGSK’s
ContractingStrategylateronpossiblyerodedsomeoralloftheinflatedprice.
Averagesarealsomoreofaproblemwhenplaintiffsseektocertifyaclassofindirect
purchasers,ofwhichthisclassisnotcomprised.SeeSheetMetalWorkersLocal441Health&
WelfarePlanv.GlaxoSmithKline,PLC,No.CIV.A.04-5898,2010WL3855552,at*22(E.D.
Pa.Sept.30,2010)(expressingtherelativedifficultyofcertifyinganindirectpurchaserclass
comparedtoadirectpurchaserclassinthepharmaceuticalantitrustcontext);seealsoInre
WellbutrinXLAntitrustLitig.,282F.R.D.126,144(E.D.Pa.2011)(findingagaininthe
14
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 14 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOTFORPUBLICATION
pharmaceuticalantitrustcontextthatananalysisusingaverages“providesareliablemethodto
provideareasonableestimateofthedamagesbasedonrelevantpurchasedata”).Likewise,the
factthatsomegenericpurchaserswereinjuredmoreorlessstronglythanothersisnotonly
permitted,5butisareasonforwhyaveragesareappropriateinthedamagescalculation.
Plaintiffshaveshownthatissuescommontotheclasspredominateoverindividualizes
ones.TheyhavemetthatconditionofRule23(b)(3).
5.Superiority
ThesecondinquiryunderRule23(b)(3)iswhether“aclassactionissuperiortoother
availablemethodsforfairlyandefficientlyadjudicatingthecontroversy.”Superiorityasksthe
Court“tobalance,intermsoffairnessandefficiency,themeritsofaclassactionagainstthoseof
‘alternativeavailablemethods’ofadjudication.”Georginev.AmchemProd.,Inc.,$3f.3d610,
632(3dCir.1996),affdsubnom.Amchem,521U.S.591.Thesuperiorityanalysis“callsforan
inquiryintojudicialeconomyandplacesgreatweightonwhethertheindividualmemberscan
bringtheirownclaims.”InreModafinilAntitrustLitig.,$37F.3d23$,253(3dCir.2016),as
amended(Sept.29,2016).Here,theCourtfindsthattheclassactiondeviceissuperiortojoinder
sincetherearecoreissuescommontotheentireclassthatmakejoinderarelatively
uneconomicaloption.DefendantsarguethatmanyofthePlaintiffshave“claimsworthover$1
million,”whichsuggeststheywouldindividuallybringtheirownsuitsifneedbe.Resp.at29-30.
YetDefendantshaveprovidedno“argumentastowhy$1millionshouldbethestandardby
“[R]ecognitionthatindividualdamagescalculationsdonotprecludeclasscertificationunderRule23(b)(3)iswell
nighuniversal.”Neale,794f.3dat374-75(quotingComcast,133S.Ct.at1437(Ginsburg,J.&Breyer,J.,
dissenting));seealsoCityofSterlingHeightsGen.Employees’Ret.Sys.v.PrudentialFin.,Inc.,No.CIV.A.12-
5275,2015WL5097883,at*13(D.N.].Aug.31,2015)(findingthat“denialofclasscertificationsolelyonthe
basisofindividualdamagescalculationswouldbeanabuseofdiscretion”)(internalquotationsomitted).
15
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 15 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>
NOT
FOR
PUBLICATION
which
aclaim
is
determined
as
being
economically
worthwhile
or
not.”
In
re
Androgel
Antitrust
Litig.,
No.
1:09-CV-956-TWT,
2018
WL
3424612,
at
*3
(N.D.
Ga.
July
16,
2018).
Given
that
Defendants
recognize
Plaintiffs
are
“a
cluster
of
corporations”
and
“sizable
companies,”
Resp
Br.
at
2;
27,
the
million-dollar
threshold
is
even
less
impressive,
especially
since,
to
quote
Judge
Posner,
“millionairehood
is
not
what
it
used
to
be,”
Nw.
Nat.
Ins.
Co.
v.
Donovan,
916
F.2d
372,
374
(7th
Cir.
1990).
Because
aclass
action
“will
achieve
economies
of
scale,
conserve
judicial
resources,
preserve
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
the
judicial
system
by
avoiding
the
waste
and
delay
of
repetitive
proceedings,
and
prevent
inconsistent
adjudications
of
similar
claims,”
Almonte
v.
Marina
Ice
Cream
Corp.,
No.
1:1
6-CV-00660
(GBD),
2016
WL
7217258,
at
*3
(S.D.N.Y.
Dec.
8,
2016),
superiority
is
met
and
the
class
is
certified.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’
motion
for
class
certification,
ECF
No.
371,
is
granted.
An
appropriate
order
follows.
DATE:‘
__________Senior
United
States
District
Court
Judge
16
Case 2:12-cv-00995-JKS-CF     Document 428     Filed 12/12/18     Page 16 of 16 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight