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
Ativos relacionados
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
