- In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D.Cal.): Representing Teva in litigation challenging the settlement of patent litigation between Teva and Gilead concerning generic versions of the HIV medications Viread®, Atripla® and Truvada® based on allegations that purported “reverse payments” delayed generic entry.
- Mylan v. Teva et al. (D.N.J.): Representing Teva in defending several cases pending in the District of New Jersey raising antitrust, Lanham Act, RICO, and other claims in relation to Teva’s branded multiple sclerosis product, Copaxone®.
- Confidential Arbitration (AAA): Represented brand pharmaceutical company in dispute raising claims for antitrust, breach of contract, and patent misuse related to license and supply agreements.
- In re Intuniv Antitrust Litigation (D.Mass.): Represented Actavis in defense of private antitrust litigation based on claims of “reverse payment” patent settlement.
- LBE v. BarBri et al. (2d Cir.): Represented bar review provider in case alleging collusion with leading law schools to exclude rival course provider. Obtained dismissal with prejudice; affirmed on appeal.
- Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n v. Actavis et al. (S.D.N.Y.) (Namenda): Represented Teva in defense of private antitrust litigation based on challenge to patent settlement agreements.
- FTC v. AbbVie and Teva (E.D.Pa) (Androgel/fenofibrate): Represented Teva in defense of antitrust lawsuit filed by Federal Trade Commission alleging that agreements between AbbVie and Teva settling litigation concerning generic AndroGel and providing Teva supply of fenofibrate constitute a “reverse payment” under the Supreme Court’s 2013 Actavis decision.
- Abbott v. Teva (D. Del.) (TriCor): Represented Teva as plaintiff in precedent-setting antitrust challenge to the strategic use of life cycle management “product hopping” strategies to delay generic competition. Litigated through trial and settlement.
- GSK v. Teva (D.Del.) (Coreg): Representing Teva in defense of patent infringement and damages claims following “at risk” launch of generic carvedilol. Leading damages defense. Tried case to jury and won JMOL decision setting aside verdict.
Otsuka v. Teva (D.N.J.) (Abilify): Defeated TRO, clearing way for Teva and other generic companies to launch generic aripiprazole.
Wyeth v. Teva (D.N.J.) (Protonix): Represented Teva in defense of patent infringement and damages claims following “at risk” launch of generic pantoprazole. Tried damages case to jury prior to settlement.
In re Rituxumab Patent Litigation (D.N.J.): Represented Teva and Celltrion in defense of patent litigation about biosimilar product. Led defense of irreparable harm issues for PI prior to settlement.
- Shionogi v. Andrx et al. (N.Y.Sup.Ct.) (Fortamet): Representing Actavis as defendant in litigation seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with a license and supply agreement concerning Fortamet.
- Teva v. Shire (S.D.N.Y.) (Adderall XR): Represented Teva as plaintiff in litigation seeking injunctive relief and specific performance in connection with supply agreement between Teva and Shire concerning generic Adderall XR. Also represented Teva as intervenor in subsequent related litigation instituted by Impax against Shire.
FDA Litigation & Regulatory Matters
- Apotex v. Alcon (S.D. Ind.) (Olopatadine): Represented Barr as intervenor-defendant in declaratory judgment action by Apotex seeking to force a forfeiture of Barr’s first-filer exclusivity. Won dismissal of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, allowing Barr to launch product with exclusivity.
- Otsuka v. FDA (D.Md.) (Abilify): Represented Teva as intervenor-defendant in litigation challenging FDA’s decision that Otsuka’s pediatric exclusivity did not block approval of ANDAs for generic aripiprazole. Successfully defeated TRO and won summary judgment.
Amicus Briefs for Generic Pharmaceuticals Association
- FTC v. Actavis (Supreme Court): Filed certiorari and merits briefs arguing against use of per se or “quick look” standards for evaluating patent settlement agreements.
- In re Wellbutrin Antitrust Litigation (Third Circuit): Filed brief addressing legal and evidentiary standards for causation and antitrust injury in private actions challenging settlement agreements.
Christopher is a member of the American and Boston Bar Associations. He currently serves as a trustee of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary in New York.
From October 1998 through April 1999, Christopher served as a special assistant district attorney in the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted crimes and successfully litigated several jury trials.