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
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
