Bayer heads to trial in US antitrust lawsuit over flea, tick medication
By Mike Scarcella
July 22 (Reuters) -A former unit of German life-sciences giant Bayer BAYGn.DE is squaring off in California federal court this week with a petcare startup that claims the company tried to block competition for animal tick and flea treatments.
Jurors in San Jose federal court heard opening statements on Monday in the antitrust case, which was brought by Tevra Brands in 2019 against Bayer Healthcare.
Tevra's lawsuit challenged a discount Bayer provided to some pet specialty retailers and distributors to exclusively carry its products and not to do business with rivals.
“Bayer made it harder and harder for retailers to carry generics," Daniel Owen, a lawyer for Tevra, told the jury on Monday.
Bayer's lawyer Daniel Asimow countered that Tevra failed because it was slow to get to market and had poor relationships with retailers. He told jurors that Bayer competed fairly in a market "crowded" with rivals.
"Generic companies have flourished — just not Tevra," Asimow said.
The trial is expected to last two weeks. Bayer has denied wrongdoing.
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 is not a defendant. Bayer referred a request for comment to Elanco, which did not immediately respond to an inquiry.
Tevra’s attorneys declined to comment.
Americans spend billions of dollars a year on tick and flea treatment for pets, according to an expert for the plaintiffs.
Tevra said it was competing with Bayer’s Advantage and Advantix topical flea and tick treatments, and lost millions of dollars in revenue from its inability to more widely distribute its generic topical imidacloprid, the active ingredient in tick and flea treatment for cats and dogs.
The lawsuit said Bayer’s alleged scheme “ensured that both retailers and consumers pay supra-competitive prices.”
Tevra told the court last week that its co-founder and chairman of the board, Robert Scharf, was expected to testify “about the lucrative opportunity for a generic imidacloprid topical.”
Bayer has argued that its discount program was voluntary.
“The record evidence makes clear that retailers were free to purchase from other suppliers,” Bayer said in a court filing last week.
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:
Bayer must face US company's flea and tick drug antitrust lawsuit
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.
