Antitrust Litigation, Dismissed Division: In Re Pfizer/Wyeth Deal -- San Francisco Federal Courthouse

Only a tangent, in relation to the main topics this blog covers. . . .

Late last summer, I began covering this suit, wondering whether a similar suit would be brought, in an attempt to enjoin the Merck transaction, on antitrust grounds, under a "private right of action" theory. No such suit was ever brought.

Updating the story, then -- on April 16, 2010, the federal District Court sitting in San Francisco dismissed (for a second time) the compaint filed by Golden Gate Pharmacy, and other independent pharmacies, thus:

. . . .In sum, plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the existence of a cognizable product market, because plaintiffs have failed to allege, even as a legal conclusion, let alone with the requisite “evidentiary facts,” see Kendall, 518 F.3d at 1047-48, that any of the alleged markets or submarkets identified in the [Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC")] consists of products reasonably interchangeable by consumers. Consequently, the SAC is subject to dismissal. See id. at 1045 (holding antitrust complaint subject to dismissal where “complaint’s ‘relevant market’ definition is facially unsustainable”); Queen City Pizza, 124 F.3d at 436 (holding “relevant market is legally insufficient and a motion to dismiss may be granted,” where “plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand”). . . .

No indication in the PACER files, as to whether Golden Gate will try to amend the complaint -- and file for a third bite at the apple.