Defendants’ Motion for Stay Denied in Lamictal Pay-For-Delay Case

On February 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor issued a text order denying defendants GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s motion to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of their Rule 23(f) petition to review the Court’s order certifying the direct purchaser class.

GSK and Teva petitioned the Third Circuit for an appeal of the class certification order in December 2018.  In January, the drugmakers asked the district court to pause the case while their petition to the Third Circuit plays out, arguing that denying a stay would cause them “irreparable harm” because it will force them “to do substantial motion and pre-trial preparations” that they contend could be “unnecessary.”  Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the drugmakers have failed to show any hardship from proceeding with the nearly 7-year-old case and that indefinitely delaying the case would prejudice the plaintiffs.

In her order denying defendants’ request to stay the district court proceedings, Judge Waldor ordered the parties to meet and propose a briefing schedule for motions in the case.

The Lamictal case is pending in federal court in New Jersey.  The case is a pay-for-delay case involving GlaxoSmithKline’s blockbuster drug Lamictal, which treats epilepsy and bipolar disorder.  The plaintiffs allege that in 2005 GSK paid Teva not to come to market with its generic version of Lamictal tablets until 2008.  But instead of paying Teva in cash, GSK’s reverse payments to Teva included the promise that GSK would not launch an authorized generic version of Lamictal for 6 months after Teva entered the market with generic Lamictal.

Faruqi & Faruqi represents the direct purchaser plaintiffs in this litigation.