Case 2:22-cv-01232-JXN-JSA Document 32 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 648
`THREE GATEWAY CENTER 
`100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor 
`Newark, NJ 07102 
`T: 973.757.1100 
`F: 973.757.1090 
`WALSH.LAW 
`
`
`
`Liza M. Walsh 
`Direct Dial: (973) 757‐1101 
`lwalsh@walsh.law  
`
`May 20, 2022
`
`VIA ECF
`Hon. Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
`Martin Luther King Jr. Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse
`50 Walnut Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`Dear Judge Neals:
`
`
`In re: Copaxone Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 22-01232 (JXN/JSA)
`This Document Relates To: All Actions
`
`This firm, along with Goodwin Procter LLP, represents Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
`Ltd. (“Teva Ltd.”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Teva Sales &
`Marketing, Inc. (collectively, “Teva” or “Defendants”) in connection with the above-referenced
`matters. We write on behalf of Defendants to respectfully request an extension of the page limits
`for the briefing on Teva’s forthcoming Motions to Dismiss, which pursuant to the April 7, 2022
`Stipulation and Order, are due on June 15, 2021. See Dkt. 23. The parties met and conferred with
`Plaintiffs on this issue, and despite a good faith effort the parties did not reach an agreement on
`an appropriate page extension. Plaintiffs provided Defendants with their position to include in this
`submission, which is reflected below. Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court
`set page limits for the upcoming briefing.
`
`As the Court knows, on March 7, 2022, Plaintiffs FWK Holdings, LLC, KPH Healthcare
`Services, Inc., Meijer, Inc., and Meijer Distribution, Inc., (the “Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs”) filed a
`putative class action complaint against Defendants. Additionally, on April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs
`Mayor and City of Baltimore, Labor Management Health Care Fund, and New York State
`Teamsters Counsel Health and Hospital Fund (collectively, the “Third-Party Payor Plaintiffs”) filed
`an amended consolidated putative class action complaint against Defendants.
`
`Defendants will be filing motions to dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Third-Party
`Payor Plaintiffs’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`Defendants’ Position:
`
`In order to fully and effectively present the multiple grounds for Teva’s motions to dismiss,
`Defendants respectfully requests the following page limit extensions for the briefing on its
`forthcoming motions to dismiss: (1) not more than 75 pages for each of its opening briefs, (2) not
`more than 75 pages for each of Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs, and (3) not more than 35 pages for
`each of Defendants’ reply briefs; with all such briefing satisfying the font and formatting
`requirements of Local Civil Rule 7.2.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01232-JXN-JSA Document 32 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 649
`
`Hon. Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`May 20, 2022
`Page 2
`
`The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ complaint, which spans 74 pages, places at issue
`numerous different aspects of Teva’s alleged conduct concerning the drug Copaxone over more
`than a decade. It ultimately brings three counts, solely under federal law, alleging: (1) improper
`exclusive dealing in violation of the Sherman Act Section 2; (2) an overarching scheme to
`monopolize in violation of the Sherman Act Section 2, which is premised on five subcategories of
`alleged conduct, and (3) violation of the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), based on allegations that
`Teva supposedly funneled improper copay subsidy payments to Medicare patients through third-
`party foundations. The Third-Party Payor Plaintiffs’ amended complaint spans 76-pages and
`raises similar factual allegations as the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ complaint, but advances
`almost entirely distinct claims, since indirect purchasers cannot pursue actions for damages under
`the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs raise claims under the antitrust laws of 24 different states or territories
`and claims under the consumer protection laws of 7 additional states. They also seek injunctive
`relief under federal law.
`
`Both of the Plaintiffs’ Complaints in this matter raise numerous distinct issues that were
`not presented in briefing in the earlier-filed Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
`Industries Ltd., et al., No. 21-cv-13087 (JXN-JSA) (“Mylan Action”), which also challenges Teva’s
`alleged conduct regarding Copaxone. As a result, the briefing here will require a substantial
`amount of additional analysis to comprehensively set forth Defendants’ varied basis for dismissal
`of Plaintiffs’ Complaints.
`
`For example, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ complaint not only alleges complex violations
`of the Sherman Act, but also brings a RICO claim The RICO claim raises several distinct issues,
`as it alleges that Defendants and their co-conspirators “designed and coordinated illegal
`kickbacks” as part of an alleged “Copaxone Enterprise” to “increase brand Copaxone sales,
`including through a conspiracy to defraud payors such as Plaintiffs and Class members.” Proper
`analysis of a RICO claim involves numerous issues not presented by Mylan’s antitrust claims,
`including whether Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a RICO enterprise, RICO predicate acts, and
`causation under RICO. In addition, recognizing that their decision to wait to file suit poses a
`significant statute of limitations issues for the scope of their claims, Plaintiffs have raised
`allegations of fraudulent concealment in an effort to toll the limitations period, which was not at
`issue in the Mylan Action.
`
`For its part, the Third-Party Payor amended Complaint alleges complex violations of both
`federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer-protection laws. In fact, the Third-Party Payor
`complaint raises claims under the laws of 31 different states or territories, presenting significant
`state-law specific issues that Defendants must address in their motion to dismiss, none of which
`were at issue in the Mylan Action. The motion to dismiss will also present an important threshold
`question of Article III standing concerning whether named plaintiffs have standing to assert claims
`under the laws of states where they did not suffer any injury. See, e.g., In re Sensipar (Cinacalcet
`Hydrochloride Tablets) Antitrust Litig., 2022 WL 736250, at *16-18 (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2022) (Stark,
`J.) (surveying decisions from multiple circuits on the question, and holding that plaintiffs lacked
`standing to pursue such claims).
`
`As the Court will recall, the Court resolved a dispute concerning a page-limit extension in
`the Mylan Action. (Dkt. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34). In that case Teva ultimately requested 80
`pages for its opening brief for its Rule 12(b)(6) motion, while Mylan asserted that an increase to
`only 50 pages was appropriate. Id. Dkt. 32. This Court issued an order setting a limit of 65 pages
`for the parties’ opening briefs on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion 25 pages for the reply brief. In view of
`the Court’s order, and notwithstanding Defendants’ view that the page limits articulated above
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01232-JXN-JSA Document 32 Filed 05/20/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 650
`
`Hon. Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`May 20, 2022
`Page 3
`
`would be appropriate, Defendants sought Plaintiffs’ consent to a compromise page-limit extension
`mirroring this Court’s previous order: 65 pages, 65 pages, and 25 pages for the moving,
`opposition, and reply briefs, respectively. Plaintiffs did not consent and instead proposed a page
`limit of no more than 50 pages for opening and opposition briefs, and 25 pages for Defendants’
`reply briefs.
`
`Defendants respectfully submit that, as in the Mylan Action, Plaintiffs’ proposal is
`insufficient to permit Defendants to fully respond to the each of the complaints’ extensive,
`complex, and varied legal and factual allegations in a manner that is helpful to the Court’s
`resolution of the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the extension is not necessary
`because this Court is already familiar with the issues from the Mylan Action is not persuasive.
`Although certain of the factual and legal allegations in the Mylan Action overlap with those in the
`Plaintiffs’ Complaints here, Teva cannot simply incorporate by reference briefing from the Mylan
`Action, which involves a different set of plaintiffs, a different complaint, and which action is not
`consolidated or even coordinated with this action. Moreover, as set forth above, Defendants’
`motions will need to address numerous significant and complex issues that were not presented
`in the Mylan action.
`
`
`Thus, while Defendants will make every effort to be as concise as possible, Defendants
`respectfully submit that there is good cause for the requested page-limit extensions for the
`anticipated Motions to Dismiss.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position:
`
`
`In response to Teva’s request, Plaintiffs explained that Teva’s proposal to nearly double
`the number of pages for its motion to dismiss briefing, which would result in the parties submitting
`310 pages of briefing to the Court, was not warranted, particularly given the Court’s familiarity
`with the issues from the recent Mylan v. Teva briefing. Although Plaintiffs do not believe that any
`extension of the page limits is warranted, in the interest of compromise, and in the hopes of
`avoiding burdening the Court with this dispute, Plaintiffs proposed to extend the page limits such
`that Teva would have an additional 20 pages for its opening briefing (i.e., 10 per plaintiff group).
`Plaintiffs further agreed to accept Teva’s proposal regarding the page limit extension for its reply
`briefs. Plaintiff’s page limit proposal (i.e., 50/50/25) would afford Teva an additional 40 pages of
`briefing beyond that contemplated by the rules.
`
`
`Teva rejected Plaintiffs’ offer of compromise, and indeed stated that if Plaintiffs would not
`assent to 310 pages of briefing, Teva would instead request that the Court grant the parties 370
`pages of briefing, i.e., 75 pages for Teva’s opening brief, presumably a commensurate extension
`for Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs, and 35 pages for Teva’s reply briefs.
`
`
`Plaintiffs do not believe 370 pages of briefing is warranted, nor is it a good use of the
`Court’s (or the parties’) limited time and resources. Plaintiffs remain willing to agree to a
`reasonable extension to 50 pages for opening and opposition briefs and 25 pages for reply briefs,
`but respectfully decline to agree to an extension of the page limits beyond those parameters.
`
`
`
`
`We thank the Court for its consideration of this request and are available should Your
`Honor or your staff have any questions or require anything further. If the Defendants’ requested
`
`* * *
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01232-JXN-JSA Document 32 Filed 05/20/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 651
`
`Hon. Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`May 20, 2022
`Page 4
`
`page-limit extension is acceptable to the Court, we respectfully request that the Court “So Order”
`this letter and place it on the docket in the above matter.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Liza M. Walsh
`
`Liza M. Walsh
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF and Email)
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED this ___ day of May, 2022
`
`
`Defendants shall have 75 pages for their motion to dismiss moving briefs, Plaintiffs’ shall
`have 75 pages for their opposition briefs, and Defendants shall have 35 pages for their
`reply briefs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________________
`Hon. Julien Xavier Neals, U.S.D.J.
`
`
`
`
`