Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#005)

Week of April 14, 2025

Top Takeaways

1. Drug Prices Under Fire: A new lawsuit says Alexion kept generic competitors out by abusing the patent system—healthcare payers may want to review pricing strategies for similar high-cost drugs.

2. Licensing Rules in the Spotlight: A dentist claims Pennsylvania’s board unfairly blocked out-of-state competition—businesses relying on professional licensing should keep an eye on legal risks tied to entry restrictions.

3. Concert Giants Still Under Pressure: A judge ruled that Live Nation must face several antitrust claims over how it controls ticket sales—companies with exclusive contracts or dominant platforms may face similar scrutiny.

New Cases Filed

Haentges v. Arndt (M.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2025): A dentist and his practice filed suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act alleging that members of the Pennsylvania State Board of Dentistry conspired to exclude qualified out-of-state dentists from licensure by endorsement. According to the complaint, Board members—most of whom are practicing Pennsylvania dentists—arbitrarily denied licensure to applicants from New York, despite favorable hearing officer findings and equivalent or superior training, as part of a broader scheme to limit market entry and reduce competition. Plaintiffs allege this conduct unreasonably restrained trade in the Pennsylvania dental services market by reducing consumer choice, particularly in rural areas, and artificially sustaining higher prices without any legitimate public health justification. The suit seeks treble, statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, along with attorneys’ fees and costs.

EmblemHealth, Inc. v. Alexion Pharms., Inc. (D. Mass. Apr. 16, 2025): Plaintiff, filed a class action against Alexion alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and various state laws through fraudulent procurement and enforcement of patents covering Soliris (eculizumab), a high-cost biologic drug used to treat rare blood disorders. Emblem claims Alexion knowingly submitted false statements and withheld prior art to obtain five improper follow-on patents after the original patent expired, then used these patents in sham litigation to delay biosimilar competition for eculizumab. The complaint alleges this conduct unlawfully extended Alexion’s monopoly, allowing it to maintain inflated prices and causing end payers to overpay by billions. The plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Follow-on actions that were filed this week are:

• Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n v. Takeda Pharm. Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2025) (alleging coordinated effort to limit competition in the Dexilant market through “reverse payment” and market allocation like in Walgreen Co. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025))

• Immediate Appliance Serv., Inc. v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide like in AXG Roofing, LLC v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2025))

• Kris Swanson Constr. LLC v. RB Glob., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2025) (same)

• Milko v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2025) (alleging defendant’s requirement that real estate brokers be members of multiple associations is an unreasonable restraint of trade like in Hardy v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2024))

• Phoebe Putney Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n (M.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 2025) (alleging market allocation and price-fixing in health insurance industry like in AmeriTeam Servs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2025))

• AIDS Healthcare Found. v. GoodRx, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (alleging GoodRx and PBMs engaged in price-fixing agreement to share sensitive pricing information like in Keaveny Drug v. GoodRx, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024))

• Summit Indus. Sols. LLC v. Shenzhen Smoore Tech. Co. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices and not compete in the wholesale distribution of cannabis oil vaporizer systems and components like in Earth’s Healing, Inc. v. Shenzhen Smoore Tech. Co. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025))

• Lopez v. Engel & Volkers (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2025) (alleging conspiracy to fix and raise prices of real estate commissions like in QJ Team, LLC v. Tex. Ass’n of Realtors, Inc. (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2023))

  
  

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025):  In this putative class action alleging various anticompetitive practices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants sought dismissal on the following grounds: (a) lack of antitrust injury, (b) failure to allege an unlawful agreement under Section 1, (c) failure to plausibly allege a relevant market and monopoly power in the secondary ticketing market, and (d) failure to state a viable theory of anticompetitive conduct under Section 2. The court held that (a) plaintiffs had adequately alleged antitrust standing as end-user consumers directly harmed by defendants’ conduct; (b) the complaint plausibly alleged unlawful exclusive dealing and other agreements with venues and ticket brokers, though claims based on agreements with artists were dismissed without prejudice; (c) the alleged secondary ticketing submarket for major concert venues was facially plausible and defendants' market share allegations sufficient at the pleading stage; and (d) multiple theories of anticompetitive conduct—including exclusive dealing, tying, leveraging, conditional licensing, and vertically-arranged boycotts—were adequately pled to survive dismissal.

FTC v. Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. (S.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2025): In this case challenging Tempur Sealy’s proposed acquisition of Mattress Firm, the parties stipulated to dismissal. The FTC previously sought a preliminary injunction to block the merger during the pendency of its administrative proceedings. The court denied the request, and as a result, the FTC dismissed its administrative complaint and stipulated to dismissal of this case.

Class Action Certifications and Settlements

In re Telescopes Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025):  In this indirect purchaser class action alleging price-fixing of consumer telescopes, the court granted final approval of a $32 million settlement resolving claims against several manufacturers. The court also approved attorneys’ fees of approximately $10.67 million (33.33% of the fund), $771,461 in expenses, and $3,000 service awards to each of the 35 class representatives. The settlement benefits an estimated class of 4 million indirect purchasers, includes a pro rata distribution plan, and permits cy pres donations of leftover funds to a nonprofit promoting astronomy education. Objections were minimal and overruled, and the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and free of collusion.

***      ***      ***

If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:

Christian Lorenz Zach Martin  christian@kressinpowers.com zach@kressinpowers.com

This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.