Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Another Loss for the Robinson-Patman Act

In Drug Mart Pharmacy Corp. v. American Home Products Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11582 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2012), Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold gave the Robinson-Patman Act another drubbing. He granted summary judgment for the defendants in this complex, long pending antitrust litigation between retail pharmacies and various pharmaceutical companies.

Numerous independently owned retail pharmacies claimed that five manufacturers of brand name prescription drugs offered discounts and rebates to their competitors in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act prohibition on price discrimination. In order to establish their losses, the pharmacies set out to compare their customers with the customers of favored pharmacies for the brand name prescription drugs in question. The “matching” process showed a very low number of lost customers. On average, each plaintiff pharmacy lost less than 200 customers and 537 transactions over the entire period examined—a 12-year time frame from 1998 to 2010.

Magistrate Judge Gold characterized these results as “de minimis.” “Many pharmacies lost no more than ten customers per defendant over the relevant twelve-year time period, or less than one customer per year.”

Accordingly, Judge Gold held summary judgment was appropriate—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s admonition in Volvo Trucks N. Am, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., to construct the Robinson-Patman Act narrowly. With that view in mind, the court concluded that plaintiffs could not show competitive injury required by Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act. Moreover, the same de minimis impact made it impossible for plaintiffs to demonstrate antitrust injury.

Despite the existence of a price disparity in drug prices, the plaintiffs were not able to show any real consequences in their business or as a matter of antitrust competitive injury. This doomed their Robinson-Patman claims.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Member

Harvey is the Managing Member for the firm’s Los Angeles office. His practice includes antitrust, intellectual property counseling and litigation, white collar defense, as well as complex commercial and business litigation.

310-586-3203

About the Author

Member

Bruce is a Member in the firm’s Washington office and serves as Manager of Mintz Levin’s Antitrust & Federal Regulation Section. In his over 30 years in private practice, he has developed extensive experience in both antitrust and communications regulation, including associated First Amendment and copyright law matters.

(202) 434-7303

Contributors

Of Counsel

Nada is of counsel in the Los Angeles office, practicing in the Litigation Section.  Her practice encompasses all aspects of complex commercial litigation and counseling, including trademark, trade secret and copyright cases, contract-related disputes, labor and employment issues, real estate, insurance coverage, and finance-related matters.  Nada has experience with all aspects of state and federal litigation, from the initial investigation of a claim to the enforcement of a judgment.  In addition to her litigation work, she has handled numerous mediations and arbitrations...

310-586-3208

About the Author

Member

Rob is a Member in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office practicing in the Antitrust & Federal Regulation section. He provides counseling on a range of regulatory issues at the federal and state level, including antitrust and unfair/deceptive trade practice issues, as well as representing clients in litigation.

(202) 661-8752

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.