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
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
