A jury awarded the defendant a complete victory at trial in this antitrust litigation involving allegations of anticompetitive exclusive dealing in the market for flea and tick medications.
Retained by Arnold & Porter
The plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, brought an antitrust lawsuit against Bayer, the maker of blockbuster branded medications to treat fleas and ticks in dogs and cats. Counsel retained Celeste Saravia and Andy Richmond of Cornerstone Research to rebut the plaintiff’s expert on antitrust liability and damages issues.
The plaintiff alleged that Bayer’s contracts with pet specialty retailers blocked generics from reaching consumers, giving rise to significant damages.
Dr. Saravia presented analysis of relevant antitrust market definition, market power, foreclosure, and competitive effects that rebutted the plaintiff’s claims and demonstrated that the plaintiff’s expert’s analysis was unreliable. Mr. Richmond rebutted the plaintiff’s damages claims.
After nearly two weeks of trial, a jury in the Northern District of California held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the narrow relevant antitrust market it had claimed. This finding, which was consistent with Dr. Saravia’s testimony, was sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s claims, and the jury did not have to address the remaining questions about market power, harm to competition, and damages. This was a complete victory for Bayer.
San Francisco
