Aggrenox Generic Drug Delay Class Action Settlement
You are a class member if you urchased and/or paid for Aggrenox® or generic versions of Aggrenox®, in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon (2010 or after), Rhode Island (purchases after July 15, 2013), South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for consumption by yourself or your family, from November 30, 2009 through December 22, 2017.
This is a pro rata settlement. Once the expenses and attorney’s fees are paid the net settlement will be divided among the valid claims
Proof of Purchase
In re: Aggrenox® Antitrust Litigation,Case No. 3:14-md-02516-SRU District Court for the District of Connecticut
he lawsuit is about the price of Aggrenox and whether its manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, delayed the availability of an allegedly less-expensive generic version through alleged anticompetitive agreements with Barr. Plaintiffs (those who brought the suit) allege that Boehringer Ingelheim and Barr did so through unlawful settlement of patent lawsuits in which the patents covering Aggrenox were in dispute. After the challenged agreements were entered into, Barr was acquired by Teva. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ actions denied Indirect Purchasers who paid for Aggrenox the benefits of competition and caused them to pay higher prices for Aggrenox than they otherwise would have paid.
Defendants deny these claims and deny that they did anything wrong. Defendants assert that the settlement of the patent lawsuits did not violate Federal or state antitrust or consumer protection laws. Defendants assert that their conduct has not delayed the entry of generic versions of Aggrenox into the market. No court or other authority has found that Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing.