Plaintiffs’ attorneys celebrate massive antitrust win against rising pharmaceutical costs

A class-action lawsuit against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. on behalf of direct purchasers of Amitiza and its generic equivalents ended today when a jury returned a verdict finding the pharma giant liable for $474.89 million in damages, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

Announced damages are pre-trebling, a statutory requirement under U.S. federal antitrust law in which a court must multiply financial damages suffered by three as a punitive deterrent against anticompetitive behavior. This brings the total award to direct purchasers to $1.4 billion. The end payer class and retailer plaintiffs were awarded separate damages.

The five-week trial regarding the drug to treat irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation began April 13, 2026. The lawsuit accused brand drug sellers Takeda and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals Inc. of paying Par Pharmaceutical Inc. to delay the launch of its generic Amitiza product by up to seven years when settling patent litigation in the fall of 2014. This delay allegedly resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges to the proposed class.

Attorneys representing the plaintiff class included Thomas M. Sobol (lead trial counsel), Erin C. Burns, Kristen A. Johnson, Jessica R. MacAuley, Laura Hayes, Rebekah Glickman-Simon and Daniel Polonsky of Hagens Berman. Trial paralegals included Riya Jha and Valeria Alvarez. Attorneys described the deal between Takeda and Par in closing arguments on May 14, 2026, as a pay-for-delay scheme that unlawfully boxed out competition, highlighting that Takeda and its partner Sucampo sold about $1 billion worth of Amitiza in the years following the deal.

“The jury spent five weeks listening to incredibly detailed testimony about patent litigation, FDA regulation and pharmacoeconomics, and they fundamentally understood that paying a competitor to stay out the market harms competition and harms the American healthcare system,” Johnson said of the trial results.

About the Amitiza Lawsuit Against Takeda

According to the complaint, the alleged reverse payment took the form of Takeda’s promise not to launch a competing authorized generic (AG) version of Amitiza when Par came to market. This no-AG agreement is allegedly manifest through the royalty payment structure in the settlement, which makes it economically irrational for Takeda to launch its own generic product when Par is allowed to do so.

According to the complaint, in exchange for Takeda’s agreement not to bring a competing market to public, Par agreed to drop its patent challenge, forego launching at-risk, and delay coming to market for five and a half years. The Supreme Court forbids such large and unjustified reverse payments.

Defendants allegedly attempted to conceal their unlawful agreement through an allegedly superficial reservation in the settlement agreement that Takeda may launch its own authorized generic (AG) product.

Find out more about the antitrust class-action lawsuit against Takeda regarding Amitiza.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs’ rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm’s determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of “Most Feared Plaintiff’s Firm,” MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260518353291/en/

“The jury ... fundamentally understood that paying a competitor to stay out the market harms competition and harms the American healthcare system."