In Re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs were a class of direct purchasers of the brand name drug Cipro from defendants Bayer AG and Bayer Corp. (collectively Bayer). This lawsuit centered around the settlement of a patent infringement suit brought by Bayer against Barr Laboratories, Inc. (Barr) in which the patent holder/manufacturer (Bayer) made a payment to the alleged infringer (Barr) and the infringer agreed to drop its challenge to the manufacturer’s patent on Cipro. Plaintiffs contended that this settlement, which included a “reverse payment”–reverse insofar as the normal direction of compensable harm in the case of patent infringement is from the alleged infringer to the patent holder–resulted in a delay in the availability of a cheaper, generic substitute to Cipro, a popular branded drug.

Jeff Leitzinger was retained by plaintiffs to: (1) analyze from an economic
perspective the likelihood of broader license provisions but for the reverse payment; (2) assuming that likelihood, consider the form that broader license agreement could reasonably be expected to have taken; (3) analyze whether in light of the likely licensing outcomes the settlement agreement reached between the parties in the case was anticompetitive; and (4) analyze the extent of any overcharges plaintiffs suffered as a result of that agreement. Dr. Leitzinger submitted expert reports and was deposed in this matter.