This case was last updated from PACER on 10/20/2021 at 07:24:48 (UTC).

United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On October 19, 2021, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “UHS”), represented by William Bornstein of Zelle LLP, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Gilead Sciences, Inc, Gilead Holdings, LLC, Gilead Sciences, LLC, and Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (collectively, “Gilead”), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), (collectively “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief together with consequential, compensatory, treble, and punitive damages for alleged anti-competitive practices of Defendants. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Minnesota. 

 

In its complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “This antitrust action concerns the unlawful efforts of Defendants and their co-conspirators to restrain competition and illegally inflate prices for combination antiretroviral therapy (“cART”) drugs used to treat and prevent Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”), a deadly virus that affects more than 1 million people in the United States.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant Gilead has built a business empire and generated enormous illegal profits off of sales of HIV medications based on tenofovir, a molecule first invented and patented by Czech scientists in the 1980s. Gilead developed a “prodrug” of tenofovir called tenefovir disoproxil fumarate (“TDF”). A prodrug is a medication that is taken orally and then automatically converted by the body into a pharmacologically active drug like tenofovir.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that “Since 2001, Gilead has gone to extraordinary lengths to restrain competition and maintain and extend its monopoly power in violation of federal and state law, causing higher prices for and restricting access to these life-saving drugs. As one part of its anticompetitive scheme, Gilead entered into two unlawful reverse payment settlement agreements with Defendant Teva, with the intent and effect of defusing Teva’s patent challenges to Gilead’s core group of TDF-based drugs: Viread (TDF), Truvada (TDF/FTC), and Atripla (TDF/FTC + Sustiva or “EFV”).”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that “The conduct of Defendants and their co-conspirators unlawfully delayed and prevented generic competition and artificially inflated the prices of HIV cART drugs. As a result, purchasers of and payors for those drugs, including UHS and its assignors, were overcharged and continued to be overcharged.”

 

Plaintiff has laid down eleven claims for relief, the first being for the alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 Reverse Payment—Viread Agreement (Gilead and Teva). The second claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 Reverse Payment—Truvada Agreement (Gilead and Teva). The third claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 Reverse Payment—Atripla Agreement (Gilead and Teva). The fourth claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § § 1, 2 Conspiracy to Monopolize (Gilead with co-conspirator BMS). The fifth claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § § 1, 2 Conspiracy to Monopolize (Gilead with co-conspirator Janssen). The sixth claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 Monopolization (Gilead). The seventh claim is for alleged violation of U.S.C. § 2 Attempted Monopolization (Gilead). The eighth claim is for alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade (Gilead with co-conspirator BMS). The ninth claim is for alleged violation of  15 U.S.C. § 1 Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade (Gilead with co-conspirator Janssen). The tenth claim is for alleged violation of Minnesota Antitrust Law Conspiracies to Restrain Trade and Monopolization and the last claim is for alleged violation of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, conspiracies to restrain trade, and monopolization. 

 

In its prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to declare that the conduct of Defendants was violative of the alleged provisions. Further, Plaintiff requested the court to grant permanent injunctive relief to remedy the ongoing anticompetitive effects of Defendants’ alleged unlawful conduct. Plaintiff also requested the court for actual, consequential, compensatory, treble, punitive, and/or other damages and that the court order restitution together with pre- and post- judgment interest and costs of litigation. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    0:21-CV-02331

  • Filing Date:

    10/19/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Antitrust

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

United HealthCare Services, Inc.

Defendants

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Gilead Holdings, LLC

Gilead Sciences, LLC

Gilead Sciences Ireland UC

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

William Bornstein

Attorney at Zelle LLP

500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000

Minneapolis, MN 55415

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Exhibit(s) A

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary reported for Plaintiff United HealthCare Services, Inc.. (Bornstein, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-9092887) filed by United HealthCare Services, Inc.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bornstein, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Gilead Holdings, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where United Healthcare Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a litigant