Loading...
Teva Pharmaceuticals has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve a major antitrust lawsuit alleging that the company deliberately delayed generic competition for its QVAR asthma inhalers. The proposed settlement, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, also includes Teva’s withdrawal of six patents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book, a critical registry listing patents that protect approved drugs. This agreement, which still requires judicial approval, represents a significant development in the ongoing scrutiny of pharmaceutical patent practices and their impact on consumers.
The class action lawsuit was initiated by a coalition of consumers, health and welfare plans, and other “end-payors” who claimed that Teva employed tactics to block cheaper generic alternatives to its QVAR inhaler, which contains the corticosteroid medication beclomethasone dipropionate HFA. According to the plaintiffs, Teva’s actions led to inflated prices for both individual consumers and institutional payors, including insurance plans.
The allegations centered on claims that Teva engaged in improper patent listings and pursued what the plaintiffs termed “sham” litigation to shield its products from generic competition. These practices, they argued, undermined the competitive market and kept the cost of asthma care artificially high. The case highlights ongoing concerns in the pharmaceutical industry about the strategic use of patents to maintain market monopolies on high-demand medications, particularly life-saving inhalers.
Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will remove six patents associated with the original QVAR product from the FDA’s Orange Book. However, the company will retain certain patents related to its newer QVAR Redihaler device, ensuring continued protection for that version of the product. Legal experts note that the Orange Book serves as a key reference for generic manufacturers seeking to enter the market, and the removal of these patents could facilitate broader access to lower-cost alternatives for asthma patients.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys hailed the settlement as a notable success, emphasizing that it achieved what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously sought but could not accomplish. “End-payor plaintiffs here have achieved what the FTC did not,” the legal team stated in court filings. The settlement class includes individuals and organizations in 42 states and the District of Columbia who purchased or reimbursed QVAR products between January 2015 and July 2025.
While Teva agreed to the settlement, the company denied any wrongdoing. Representatives emphasized that resolving the lawsuit allows the company to focus on its core mission of providing innovative treatments for patients. Judicial approval will be required before the settlement becomes final, and attorneys for the plaintiffs plan to request up to $11.5 million, or roughly 33%, of the settlement fund as legal fees.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
This settlement reflects broader trends in U.S. antitrust enforcement, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. Regulators and private litigants alike have increasingly targeted companies for practices that extend patent protections beyond the original intent, sometimes referred to as “evergreening.” By extending patent life through additional filings and legal maneuvers, pharmaceutical companies can limit generic competition, thereby sustaining higher prices for critical medications.
Consumer advocacy groups have praised the settlement as a positive step toward restoring competition in the asthma inhaler market. Affordable access to medications like QVAR is crucial for patients managing chronic respiratory conditions, especially as asthma prevalence remains significant across the U.S. Health plans and insurers also benefit from lower drug costs, which can translate into reduced premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for their members.
Legal analysts predict that this settlement may encourage other pharmaceutical companies to reevaluate their patent strategies, particularly as antitrust scrutiny intensifies. While Teva retains some protections for its Redihaler device, the removal of key QVAR patents could accelerate the entry of generic competitors, ultimately lowering costs and expanding patient access.
For now, the $35 million settlement serves as a resolution to a decade-long dispute over Teva’s handling of the QVAR inhaler patents. It underscores the growing influence of private antitrust litigation in supplementing regulatory oversight, demonstrating that combined legal and governmental efforts can hold major pharmaceutical companies accountable for practices that restrict competition.
As the case moves toward final approval, stakeholders—including patients, insurers, and legal observers—will be watching closely. The outcome may have broader implications for how pharmaceutical patents are managed and challenged in the U.S., potentially shaping future industry practices and enforcement strategies.
📢 Attention Legal Professionals and Law Students!
The Teva $35 million antitrust settlement highlights the growing role of antitrust litigation and pharmaceutical patent disputes in shaping the legal landscape. If you’re interested in staying ahead of these high-profile cases or exploring exciting opportunities in litigation, intellectual property, or regulatory law, LawCrossing has thousands of direct-from-employer legal job listings waiting for you.
