Bayer defeats competition claims in US trial over flea and tick treatment
By Mike Scarcella
Aug 2 (Reuters) -A former unit of German life-sciences giant Bayer convinced a federal jury in California on Thursday that it did not block a pet care startup from competing in the retail market for a type of topical animal tick and flea treatment.
The jury determined in its second day of deliberations in San Jose that plaintiff Tevra Brands had not shown that there was a “relevant” market for the treatments under U.S. antitrust law. The verdict came after a two-week trial.
Tevra had urged the jury to hold Bayer liable for allegedly blocking generic competition for topical flea and tick treatments containing the insecticide imidacloprid as their active ingredient. Tevra accused Bayer of imposing deals on major pet retailers to only feature some Bayer products, causing Tevra to lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue.
Attorneys for Tevra did not immediately respond to a request for comment. They can appeal the verdict to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bayer sold Bayer Animal Health, a Bayer Healthcare unit, five years ago to Elanco Animal Health ELAN.N in a $7.6 billion deal.
Elanco in a statement welcomed the jury’s verdict and said retailers in the highly competitive pet health market are able to carry a wide variety of products. Bayer denied any wrongdoing.
Hours after the verdict was announced, Tevra sued Elanco in California federal court in a new lawsuit mirroring the allegations in the Bayer case.
Elanco was separately hit with a consumer lawsuit on Wednesdayaccusing it of suppressing competition for its topical flea and tick treatment. That case in Indiana focused in part on Tevra’s effort to sell some of its products at pet specialty stores.
Tevra filed its lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare in 2019, challenging a discount it said Bayer provided to some pet specialty retailers and distributors to exclusively carry its products.
“Tevra went into the marketplace hoping for nothing more than a fair opportunity to sell their product, and they were denied that opportunity because of Bayer’s actions,” Daniel Owen, a lawyer for Tevra, told the jury. He said Bayer's conduct caused consumers to pay higher prices.
Bayer's lawyer Daniel Asimow countered that Tevra’s market definition was too narrow, and that competition should be considered broader than one product Bayer sells versus a generic from Tevra.
Asimow also said Tevra was slow to get to market and had poor relationships with retailers. Bayer competed “vigorously, but ethically” and its discount program was short-term and voluntary, Asimow told the jury.
The case is Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 5:19-cv-04312.
For Tevra: Daniel Owen of Polsinelli
For Bayer: Daniel Asimow and Sonia Pfaffenroth of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
Read more:
Advantix maker Elanco hit with price-fixing lawsuit over flea, tick products
Bayer heads to trial in US antitrust lawsuit over flea, tick medication
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
