Antitrust Class Actions Regarding Generic Lidoderm Pain Patch Settle for A Combined Amount Over $270 Million

September 17, 2018 by

A California federal judge gave final approval to two settlements of class actions alleging that Teikoku, Endo and Actavis violated antitrust laws by stalling the release of a generic form of the Lidoderm pain patch. One class actin was on behalf of direct purchasers and settled for $166 million. The other was on behalf of end payors and settled for $104.75 million.

End payors included employee health and welfare benefit plans, unions or individuals who purchased the drug from third parties. The direct purchaser plaintiffs included pharmaceutical wholesalers, pharmacies, hospitals and retail stores that purchased patches and supplied them to others.

The settlements cover anyone who purchased brand or generic Lidoderm between August 2012 and May 2014, when an authorized generic version finally came online after having allegedly been delayed by seven and a half months.

The case is In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, case number 3:14-md-02521, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!


Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.