Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 1 of 57 PageID #:
`35294
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 3
`I. Regeneron Is Entitled To Permanent Injunctive Relief To Restore Competition
`After Amgen Monopolized And Engaged In Other Wrongful Conduct In The
`PCSK9i Market ..................................................................................................3
`A. The Evidence At Trial Established That Injunctive Relief Is Necessary
`................................................................................................................ 4
`B. The Court Has Broad Discretion To Fashion Remedies That Stop And
`Undo Amgen’s Monopoly And Its Anticompetitive Wrongful Conduct
`.............................................................................................................. 11
`C. The Court Should Enter A Prohibitory Injunction To Stop Amgen
`From Engaging In Unlawful Behavior And Restore A Level Playing
`Field In The PCSK9i Market ............................................................... 14
`II. Amgen Has Been Unjustly Enriched By Its Egregious Misconduct And
`Regeneron Is Accordingly Entitled To A Constructive Trust .........................26
`III. Regeneron Is Entitled To Prejudgment Interest On Its Tortious Interference,
`Donnelly Act, Federal Antitrust, And Cartwright Act Claims ........................30
`A. Regeneron Is Entitled To Prejudgment Interest On Its Tortious
`Interference Claim Under Delaware Law ............................................ 31
`B. Regeneron Is Entitled To Prejudgment Interest On Its Donnelly Act
`Claim Under New York Law ............................................................... 36
`C. The Court Should Award Regeneron Prejudgment Interest For At
`Least One Year On Its Federal Antitrust And Cartwright Act Claims 39
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 45
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 2 of 57 PageID #:
`35295
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Alexander’s Dep’t Stores v. Ohrbach’s, Inc.,
`42 N.Y.S.2d 703 (App. Div. 1943) .............................................................................. 3
`
`Am. Home Prods. Corp. v. F.T.C.,
`695 F.2d 681 (3d Cir. 1982)....................................................................................... 18
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`336 F.Supp.3d 333 (D. Del. 2018) ............................................................................. 45
`
`B.A.S.S. Group, LLC v. Coastal Supply Co.,
`2009 WL 1743730 (Del. Ch. June 19, 2009) ............................................................. 27
`
`Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates,
`8 A.3d 573 (Del. Ch. 2010).................................................................................. 32, 35
`
`Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures,
`327 U.S. 251 (1946) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Boyer v. Wilmington Materials, Inc.,
`754 A.2d 881 (Del. Ch. 1999).................................................................................... 32
`
`Brandywine Smyrna, Inc. v. Millennium Builders, LLC,
`34 A.3d 482 (Del. 2011) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`BVE Prods., Inc. v. Saar Co., LLC,
`835 N.Y.S.2d 555 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2007) .......................................................... 36
`
`Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Cantor,
`724 A.2d 571 (Del. Ch. 1998).................................................................................... 28
`
`Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.,
`479 U.S. 104 (1986) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Carl Wagner & Sons v. Appendagez, Inc.,
`485 F.Supp. 762 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ............................................................................. 37
`
`CertiSign Holding, Inc. v. Kulikovsky,
`2018 WL 2938311 (Del. Ch. June 7, 2018) ............................................................... 33
`
`CFLP v. Cantor,
`2003 WL 21488707 (Del. Ch. June 19, 2003) ........................................................... 35
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 3 of 57 PageID #:
`35296
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven,
`603 A.2d 818 (Del. 1992) .......................................................................................... 32
`
`Cortazar v. Cortazar,
`2019 WL 2554627 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 7, 2019)....................................................... 37
`
`Delulio v. 320-57 Corp.,
`99 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1984) ....................................................... 38
`
`E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`366 U.S. 326 .............................................................................................................. 22
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Enhabit, Inc. v. Nautic Partners IX, L.P.,
`2024 WL 4929729 (Del. Ch. Dec. 2, 2024) ............................................................... 29
`
`Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al.,
`No. 24-6256, 2024 No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal. 2024) ................................... 12
`
`Esprit Health, LLC v. Univ. of Delaware,
`2015 WL 9305644 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2015)............................................................... 36
`
`Est. of Berland by Gilman v. Lavastone Cap. LLC,
`2022 WL 17084121 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2022) ............................................................ 33
`
`Est. of Daher v. LSH CO,
`2024 WL 3571642 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2024) ............................................................ 33
`
`F.E. Myers Co. a Div. of McNeil Corp. v. Pipe Maint. Servs., Inc.,
`599 F.Supp. 697 (D. Del. 1984) ................................................................................. 36
`
`FlowShare, LLC v. GeoResults, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1921019 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2020)..................................................... 34
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. United States,
`405 U.S. 562 (1972) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Dematic Corp.,
`2023 WL 2967781 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 13, 2023)................................................... 32
`
`FTC v. Shire ViroPharma, Inc.,
`917 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2019)......................................................................................... 4
`
`FTC v. Surescripts, LLC,
`No. 1:19-cv-01080 ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 4 of 57 PageID #:
`35297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`Gelco Builders & Burjay Constr. Corp. v Simpson Factors Corp.,
`301 N.Y.S.2d 728 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969) .................................................................... 38
`
`In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig.,
`2024 WL 4438249 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2024).............................................................. 12
`
`Great Am. Opportunities, Inc. v. Cherrydale Fundraising, LLC,
`2010 WL 338219 (Del. Ch. Jan. 29, 2010) ................................................................ 32
`
`Greenly v. Greenly,
`49 A.2d 126 (Del. Ch. 1946)...................................................................................... 27
`
`Halperin v. Moreno (In re Green Energy Servs.),
`610 B.R. 760 (D. Del. 2019) ...................................................................................... 28
`
`Halperin v. Moreno (In re Green Field Energy Servs.),
`834 Fed. App’x 695 (3d Cir. 2020)...................................................................... 27, 28
`
`Hogg v. Walker,
`622 A.2d 648 (Del. 1993) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`Int’l Boxing Club of N.Y., Inc. v. United States,
`358 U.S. 242 (1959) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`Int’l Salt Co. v. United States,
`332 U.S. 392 (1947) ............................................................................................. 13, 22
`
`InterMune, Inc. v. Harkonen,
`2024 WL 3619692 (Del. Ch. Aug. 1, 2024) .............................................................. 33
`
`Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l Inc.,
`834 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 2016)....................................................................................... 35
`
`Lizden Indus., Inc. v. Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc.,
`95 A.D.3d 738 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2012) ............................................................... 37
`
`Lorain Journal Co. v. United States,
`342 U.S. 143 (1951) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Marcus v. PQ Corp.,
`458 F. App’x 207 (3d Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 30, 31
`
`Massachusetts v. Microsoft Corp.,
`373 F.3d 1215 ................................................................................................ 15, 19, 22
`
`Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc.,
`473 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2007)........................................................................... 39, 43, 44
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 5 of 57 PageID #:
`35298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`McGlothlin v. Petrunich Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery,
`2023 WL 5747520 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2023) .................................................... 32
`
`Michael Grecco Prods., Inc v. GlowImages, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1866172 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,
`2020 WL 1866000 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2020) ............................................................... 45
`
`Mid-West Paper Prods. Co. v. Cont’l Grp., Inc.,
`596 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1979)....................................................................................... 13
`
`Miller v. Trimont Glob. Real Est. Advisors LLC,
`587 F.Supp.3d 170 (D. Del. 2022) ............................................................................. 33
`
`Milsen Co. v. Southland Corp.,
`454 F.2d 363 (7th Cir. 1971) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`In re Mobilactive Media, LLC,
`2013 WL 297950 (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2013) ................................................................ 35
`
`Moose Agric. LLC v. Layn USA, Inc.,
`639 F.Supp.3d 1150 (D. Colo. 2022) ......................................................................... 33
`
`In re Mortg. Lenders Network USA, Inc.,
`406 B.R. 213 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston,
`594 U.S. 69 (2021) ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`Nat’l Farmers’ Org., Inc. v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.,
`850 F.2d 1286 (8th Cir. 1988), amended 878 F.2d 1118 (8th Cir. 1989) ................. 12
`
`Nat’l Soc. of Pro. Engineers v. United States,
`435 U.S. 679 (1978) ............................................................................................. 12, 14
`
`Ne. Pennsylvania Freethought Soc’y v. Cnty. of Lackawanna Transit Sys.,
`938 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 2019)......................................................................................... 3
`
`New York City Housing Authority v. Spectrum Contracting Group, Inc.,
`2014 WL 912261 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 6, 2014) ........................................................ 38
`
`New York v. Microsoft Corp.,
`224 F.Supp.2d 76 (D. D. C 2002) ........................................................................ 19, 26
`
`Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov,
`162 A.3d 102 (Del. Ch. 2017)...................................................................................... 3
`
`Palmyra Park Hosp. Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Mem’l Hosp.,
`604 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 12
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 6 of 57 PageID #:
`35299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`Preferred Inv. Servs., Inc. v. T & H Bail Bonds, Inc.,
`2013 WL 3934992 (Del. Ch. July 24, 2013).............................................................. 35
`
`Purewick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC,
`666 F.Supp.3d 419 (D. Del. 2023) ............................................................................. 31
`
`Ramnarain v. City of New York,
`474 F.Supp.2d 443 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) ......................................................................... 38
`
`Raymond v. Bd. of Pub. Works of Lewes,
`1990 WL 63829 (Del. Super. Ct. May 8, 1990) ........................................................ 36
`
`Ripsom v. Beaver Blacktop, Inc.,
`1988 WL 32071 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 6, 1988)......................................................... 36
`
`Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. v. United States,
`334 U.S. 110 (1948) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Schmidt v. Skolas,
`770 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 40
`
`Skretvedt v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours,
`372 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2004)....................................................................................... 27
`
`Snepp v. United States,
`444 U.S. 507 (1980) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`Sperry v. Crompton Corp.,
`8 N.Y.3d 204 (2007) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc.,
`988 F.3d 690 (4th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................. 3, 12
`
`Sun Ship, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co.,
`785 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 45
`
`Taxman v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Piscataway,
`91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996)....................................................................................... 45
`
`Theis v. Bd. of Educ.,
`2000 WL 341061 (Del. Ch. Mar. 17, 2000)............................................................... 27
`
`Tipaldo v. Lynn,
`26 N.Y.3d 204 (2015) ................................................................................................ 37
`
`Tomaszewski v. Trevena, Inc.,
`482 F.Supp.3d 317 (E.D. Pa. 2020) ........................................................................... 40
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 7 of 57 PageID #:
`35300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`United States v. Apple Inc.,
`992 F.Supp.2d 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d 787 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2015) .................. 26
`
`United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
`399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005)....................................................................................... 15
`
`United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc.,
`2006 99-cv-00005-SLR (D. Del. 2006) ..................................................................... 15
`
`United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
`366 U.S. 316 (1961) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`United States v. Elec. Payment Servs.,
`(D. Del. Oct. 14, 1994), approved by 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21234 (Oct. 14, 1994)
`.............................................................................................................................. 16, 20
`
`United States v. Google LLC,
`2025 20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C. 2025) .................................................................... 21
`
`United States v. Grinnell Corp.,
`384 U.S. 563 (1966) ............................................................................................. 12, 15
`
`United States v. Microsoft,
`231 F.Supp.2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002) ............................................................................. 14
`
`United States v. Swift & Co.,
`286 U.S. 106 (1932) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`United States v. Topco Assocs., Inc.,
`405 U.S. 596 (1972) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp.,
`110 F.Supp. 295 (D. Mass. 1953), aff’d 347 U.S. 521 (1954) ................................... 19
`
`United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp.,
`391 U.S. 244 (1968) ............................................................................................. 12, 23
`
`United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
`340 U.S. 76 (1950) ............................................................................................... 14, 18
`
`United States v. W.T. Grant Co.,
`345 U.S. 629 (1953) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Urban v. B.R. Guest, Inc.,
`845 N.Y.S.2d 584 (4th Dep’t 2007) ........................................................................... 37
`
`Vizant Techs. LLC v. Whitchurch,
`675 F. App’x 201 (3d Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 4
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 8 of 57 PageID #:
`35301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`Weiss v. York Hosp.,
`745 F.2d 786 (3d Cir. 1984)....................................................................................... 13
`
`Wilk v. Am. Med. Ass’n,
`895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................... 12, 24
`
`Williams Companies, Inc. v. Energy Transfer LP,
`2022 WL 3650176 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2022) ................................................ 32, 33, 34
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc.,
`395 U.S. 100 (1969) ................................................................................... 3, 12, 13, 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C.
` § 15................................................................................................................. 39, 40, 44
` § 26......................................................................................................................... 3, 12
`
`28 U.S.C.
` § 1961......................................................................................................................... 31
`
`California
` Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750 .................................................................................. 3
` Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16761 .................................................................... 39, 40, 44
`
`Delaware
` 6 Del. C. § 21-08 ........................................................................................................ 28
` 6 Del. C. § 23-01 .................................................................................................. 32, 33
`
`New York
` N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001 ..................................................................................... 36, 37, 38
` N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004(a) ............................................................................................ 37
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
` Rule 16(a)(2) .............................................................................................................. 43
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`FTC Press Release, Merck Settles FTC Charges that Its Acquisition of
`Medco Could Cause Higher Prices and Reduced Quality for
`Prescription Drugs (Aug. 27, 1998) ........................................................................... 10
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 9 of 57 PageID #:
`35302
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`“[W]e start from the premise that an injunction against future violations is not adequate
`to protect the public interest. If all that was done was to forbid a repetition of the
`illegal conduct, those who had unlawfully built their empires could preserve them
`intact. They could retain the full dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit
`from the unlawful restraints of trade which they had inflicted on competitors.”
`
`Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948).1
` The Supreme Court’s recognition almost eighty years ago—that fixing proven
`anticompetitive conduct requires more than recovery of lost profits and an injunction against
`repetition of illegal behavior—remains true today. Compensatory damages, whether trebled or
`supplemented by punitive damages, will not undo the ongoing harm to competition in the
`PCSK9i market caused by Amgen’s conduct or restore Praluent to where it would have been
`in a competitive marketplace based on head-to-head competition. Nor could such damages fully
`offset the harm Amgen inflicted. Further injunctive and equitable relief is required to correct
`the market distortions caused by Amgen’s unlawful behavior.
`After a seven-day trial, the jury concluded that Amgen sought to unlevel the playing
`field to cement its monopoly on Repatha—a drug that Amgen estimated to be worth billions of
`dollars annually. As the trial showed, including through admissions of Amgen’s highest-level
`executives, Amgen did not want to compete on price or on the merits—“enough is enough.”
`Indeed, because Regeneron was willing to do something Amgen was not ( i.e. aggressively
`compete on price to secure formulary status with insurers), the only way Amgen could win was
`by engaging in anticompetitive conduct to ensure it was playing alone.
`Time is of the essence now before Praluent is marginalized even further in the market
`by Amgen. Regeneron submits the following post-trial motion to request that the Court deprive
`Amgen of its illegitimately entrenched Repatha monopoly and re-level the playing field to
`
`1 Emphasis is added in italics throughout.
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 10 of 57 PageID #:
`35303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`repair competition in the PCSK9i market. As shown below, this can only happen if the Court
`grants the following remedies. First, the Court should enter a permanent injunction that:
`1. Prohibits Amgen from engaging in cross-therapeutic bundling through Praluent’s
`patent expiry in 2032;
`2. Prohibits Amgen from continuing to enforce agreements with insurers that use, or
`were the product of offers using, the cross-therapeutic bundle;
`3. Prohibits Amgen from offering rebates to the large insurers (CVS, ESI, Humana,
`Optum/UHC) for Repatha formulary coverage, and reimburses Regeneron for the
`marketing efforts it will now have to undertake to correct the misinformation about
`the limited availability of Praluent in the marketplace, for the earlier of three years
`or until Praluent achieves a U.S. market share of 35% for four quarters in a row
`reflecting the market dynamics before Amgen used cross-therapeutic bundling; and
`4. Notifies insurers of the jury’s decision and that Amgen cannot continue to provide
`cross-therapeutic bundled rebates, as well as notifies prescribers and the public of
`the jury’s decision and that Praluent remains available in the PCSK9i market.
`To ensure that Amgen complies with these remedies to restore competition, the Court should
`also impose a compliance monitor. These are classic remedies in antitrust cases that courts use
`to restore markets to competitive levels and protect competition for the future. Indeed, Amgen
`already agreed to a compliance monitor as a condition of settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade
`Commission (“FTC”) to obtain approval of its $27.8 billion Horizon Therapeutics acquisition.
`Second, the Court should disgorge Amgen of the ill-gotten proceeds of its “unlawfully
`built empire” by imposing a constructive trust. This is a well-recognized equitable remedy
`under Delaware law for tortious conduct that results in unjust enrichment. Amgen reaped
`substantial proceeds that it would not have otherwise obtained. And, until the playing field is
`re-leveled, Amgen continues to benefit from a Repatha monopoly due to its wrongful conduct.
`Third, the Court should award prejudgment interest on Regeneron’s claims in order to
`fully compensate Regeneron for the effects of Amgen’s anticompetitive conduct. Prejudgment
`interest is a necessary component in making Regeneron whole. Only by accounting for the lost
`time value of the money Regeneron would have received but for Amgen’s anticompetitive
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 11 of 57 PageID #:
`35304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`conduct can Regeneron be properly compensated for the harm. And Amgen should not receive
`any benefit from retaining Regeneron’s money for the last four years.
`ARGUMENT
`I. REGENERON IS ENTITLED TO PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
`RESTORE COMPETITION AFTER AMGEN MONOPOLIZED AND
`ENGAGED IN OTHER WRONGFUL CONDUCT IN THE PCSK9I MARKET
`The Court should enter a permanent injunction in Regeneron’s favor. All of
`Regeneron’s antitrust claims provide for injunctive relief. See 15 U.S.C. § 26 (federal antitrust
`laws); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750 (Cartwright Act); Alexander’s Dep’t Stores v.
`Ohrbach’s, Inc., 42 N.Y.S.2d 703, 707-08 (App. Div. 1943) (Donnelly Act). Injunctive relief
`is also “a common and non-controversial remedy for tortious interference with prospective
`economic advantage.” Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov , 162 A.3d 102, 122 (Del. Ch.
`2017); see also Vizant Techs. LLC v. Whitchurch , 675 F. App’x 201, 203, 209 (3d Cir. 2017)
`(affirming permanent injunction on Delaware law tortious interference claim that barred
`defendant from “discouraging others to do business with” plaintiff).
`To obtain a permanent injunction, Regeneron “must show that (1) it has suffered
`irreparable injury; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) the balance of hardships tips in
`its favor; and (4) granting an injunction would not be against the public interest.” Ne.
`Pennsylvania Freethought Soc’y v. Cnty. of Lackawanna Transit Sys., 938 F.3d 424, 442 (3d
`Cir. 2019) (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). “The first two
`elements typically constitute two sides of the same inquiry.” Id. (quotations omitted).
`For Regeneron’s antitrust claims, “[t]he Clayton Act tweaks the first factor by
`authorizing equitable relief where a plaintiff shows ‘a significant threat’ of irreparable antitrust
`injury, even if the injury hasn’t happened yet.” Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc. , 988
`F.3d 690, 705 (4th Cir. 2021) (quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc. , 395 U.S.
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 12 of 57 PageID #:
`35305
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`100, 130 (1969)). And there is no antitrust injury requirement for Regeneron’s tortious
`interference claim. See, e.g., Vizant Techs., 675 F. App’x at 207-09.
`Importantly, a “wrongdoer cannot avoid an injunction by voluntarily ceasing its illegal
`conduct.” FTC v. Shire ViroPharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2019). An injunction may
`issue so long as “there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” Id. (quoting
`United States v. W.T. Grant Co. , 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953)). Amgen “bears the risk of the
`uncertain consequences created by its exclusionary acts” and therefore “at the least, equitable
`relief properly goes beyond merely ‘undoing the act’; the proper relief is eradicating all the
`consequences of the act and providing deterrence against repetition; and any plausible
`doubts should be resolved against the monopolist.” Areeda & Hovenkamp, ANTITRUST LAW:
`AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION ¶ 653f (4th ed. 2017)
`(emphasis added); cf. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures , 327 U.S. 251, 265 (1946) (“[T]he
`wrongdoer” must “bear the risk of the uncertainty which [its] own wrong has created.”).
`A. The Evidence at Trial Established that Injunctive Relief is Necessary
`
`1. Amgen’s Ongoing Conduct and its Ongoing Effects Have Caused Irreparable
`Injury to Regeneron With No Adequate Remedy From Past Monetary Damages
`Amgen’s conduct, which the jury found to be anticompetitive, has caused—and
`continues to cause—irreparable harm to Regeneron by significantly limiting Praluent’s access
`to the U.S. PCSK9i market. The testimony at trial demonstrates that this harm is ongoing and
`will continue for many years due to Amgen’s anticompetitive misconduct. Specifically:
` Repatha’s Exclusive Formulary Coverage: Praluent has no coverage (and
`Repatha has exclusive coverage) at the national formularies of the “Big 3” PBMs
`Case 1:22-cv-00697-JLH Document 516 Filed 06/20/25 Page 13 of 57 PageID #:
`35306
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`AMERICAS 130196597
`
`
`(CVS, ESI, Optum/UHC), plus Humana Part D.2 These major insurers, that Amgen
`referred to as the “MEGA accounts,” control between 80-90% of the market.3
` Repatha’s Monopoly Power: As a result of Amgen’s anticompetitive actions,
`Amgen’s Repatha market share is over 90% with Regeneron’s Praluent market
`share now at 9% and falling. 4 Notably, Praluent’s market share for new PCSK9i
`patients is only 6% and also falling, 5 which will lead to Praluent’s overall market
`share falling further into the future. Amgen internally projected that “they want to
`have 100 percent share in this market”6 and, absent meaningful injunctive relief,
`Amgen is close to achieving this unlawful end.
` Long-Term Effects of Amgen’s Monopoly: Based on the economic realities of
`the U.S. PCSK9i market and prescriber behavior, the exclusion of Praluent will
`continue, with no ability for Regeneron to effectively compete on price or rebates:7
`o As Amgen told the jury, once a product achieves significantly more market
`share, the PBMs become entrenched with that choice because they “can get
`more rebate value, what they call revenue, from a high-volume product
`versus a low volume product.”8
`o As Regeneron’s Steven Hyde explained, Amgen’s market dominance places
`Regeneron in a “point of no return” where “[n]one of the PBMs are willing
`to reopen the PCSK9 category for consideration, and they’re not willing to
`accept bids from Regeneron to participate in the PCSK9 category.”9 Absent
`further relief, the market is “below the inflection point ” where PBMs can
`
`2 Trial Tr. Vol. II 245:6-12 (Dr. Len Schleifer testified that “[w]e do not have front-line access
`to any of [the large three insurance companies]” including Part D or Medicare as well as
`commercial, and that Amgen “basically [has] the entire market.”); id. at 374:3-10 (Steven Hyde
`testified that “[c]urrently, for the Commercial and the Part D formularies, at all of those big
`three PBMs, Praluent is excluded on all of the national template formularies.”); Trial Tr. Vol.
`III 475:20–476:7 (Marion McCourt testified that in May 2025, patients do not have access for
`Praluent at Express Scripts [Commercial and Part D], CVS [Commercial and Part D], United
`Healthcare/Optum [Commercial and Part D], or Humana [Part D]).
`3 Trial Tr. Vol. III 677:6-12 (Amgen witness Murdo Gordon admitting that “the three largest
`PBMs in the U.S.” cover “80 to 90” percent of the market); Trial Tr. Vol. VI 1452:15-19
`(Amgen’s corporate representative Kave Niksefat testifying that “three PBMs manage the
`prescriptions for over 80 percent of the market”); see also PTX-511; PTX-805 (“CVS, UHG,
`and ESI (which we have internally termed “MEGA” accounts) . . . now represent over 80% of
`all insured lives within the United States.”).
`4 Trial Tr. Vol. III 469:15–470:12 (Marion McCourt).
`5 Id.; see also D.I. 479, at 7 (Special Interrogatory 15: “Has Regeneron proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Amgen’s anticompetitive conduct substantially foreclosed
`Regeneron from the relevant market? A. Yes.”).
`6 Trial Tr. Vol. IV 889:15-18 (Prof. Fiona Scott Morton); PTX-602, at PTX-602-031.
`7 See infra, Section I.C.3.
`8 Trial Tr. Vol. III 574:19–575:1. (Murdo Gordon);