Today, the Nexium district court will hear arguments on the Ranbaxy defendants' motion for a mistrial. As we have previously reported (click here, here and here to read more), In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since the Supreme Court's Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis decision.
At the heart of Ranbaxy's motion is their claim that they will suffer incurable prejudice because the Court has changed its position on which reverse payment may form the basis for plaintiffs' case. According to Ranbaxy, in every single ruling that the court has issued after and including its summary judgment decision, the court has held that the only alleged reverse payment at issue is the AstraZeneca-Teva settlement—not the AstraZeneca-Ranbaxy settlement. Based upon these repeated rulings, the Ranbaxy defendants structured their trial defense to defend against claims premised solely on the AstraZeneca-Teva settlement.
Ranbaxy asserts that the court recently changed its position when it decided to revise the verdict form to add a question regarding the large and unjustified payment allegedly made to Ranbaxy.
We'll report back after the court rules.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
