We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation

Track this case

Case Number:



California Northern

Nature of Suit:


Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action, Multi-district Litigation


William H. Orrick



Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. September 21, 2018

    Class Attys Get $35M Of $105M Lidoderm Pay-For-Delay Deal

    A California federal judge has awarded $35 million in attorneys' fees as part of a settlement for end-payors that claimed a group of pharmaceutical companies delayed the release of a generic form of the Lidoderm pain patch.

  2. September 12, 2018

    Two Lidoderm Class Action Deals Worth $271M Get Final OK

    A California federal judge on Wednesday approved “excellent” settlements ending claims that Teikoku, Endo and Actavis violated antitrust laws by stalling the release of a generic form of the Lidoderm pain patch, finalizing a $104.75 million deal with end payors and a $166 million deal with direct purchasers, including a combined $85.6 million in attorneys’ fees.

  3. August 1, 2018

    Class Attys Want $39M Cut Of $105M Lidoderm Settlement

    Attorneys for end-payors who claimed that pharmaceutical companies delayed the release of a generic form of the Lidoderm pain patch have asked a California federal court to award $38.6 million in fees and expenses for their work securing $104.75 million in settlements with Teikoku, Endo and Actavis, calling it the best comparable outcome in a decade.  

  4. June 12, 2018

    Attys Want $47M From $166M Lidoderm Pay-For-Delay Deal

    Attorneys for the direct purchasers of the Lidoderm pain patch urged a California federal judge to approve more than $47 million in attorneys' fees and reimbursements out of a $166 million settlement with pharmaceutical companies Teikoku, Endo and Actavis.

  5. March 21, 2018

    Endo, Others Ink $166M Lidoderm Pay-For-Delay Settlements

    Direct purchasers of the Lidoderm pain patch asked for preliminary approval in California federal court Tuesday of pay-for-delay class settlements totaling $166 million reached with branded pharmaceutical makers Teikoku and Endo and generics maker Actavis.

  6. February 22, 2018

    Endo Settles Rest Of Lidoderm Antitrust Suit

    Endo has reached a settlement with the remaining plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit over the Lidoderm pain patch on the eve of jury selection for an upcoming trial, court records show, an effort to end the case after a California federal judge refused to enter judgment in its favor.

  7. December 12, 2017

    Retailers Settle Claims Against Teikoku In Lidoderm MDL

    A handful of retailers, including Walgreen Co., Rite Aid Corp., CVS Pharmacy Inc. and Kroger Co., told a California federal court Tuesday that they have settled claims against Japanese pharmaceutical company Teikoku and a domestic subsidiary in antitrust multidistrict litigation over the Lidoderm pain patch.

  8. November 3, 2017

    Pharma Cos. Can't Dodge Lidoderm Buyers' Antitrust MDL

    A California federal judge Friday squashed attempts by pharmaceutical companies Endo, Teikoku and Watson to end multidistrict antitrust litigation over the Lidoderm pain patch, ruling that there’s enough evidence to show that Watson could have beat the other two companies in a patent infringement trial had they not settled.

  9. October 31, 2017

    Walgreens, CVS, Others Exit Lidoderm Antitrust MDL

    Endo Pharmaceuticals has reached an agreement with a handful of big name retailers including Walgreen Co. and CVS Pharmacy Inc. to end multidistrict antitrust litigation over the Lidoderm pain patch, according to documents filed in California federal court Tuesday.

  10. February 21, 2017

    Lidoderm Buyers, End Payors Win Cert. In Pay-For-Delay MDL

    Purchasers of the Lidoderm pain patch won class certification in an antitrust multidistrict litigation against Endo Pharmaceuticals and others on Tuesday when a California federal judge found that both direct purchasers and end-payors proved common injuries with alleged delays of a generic version of the drug.