What did the U.S. jury find regarding Takeda's conduct with Amitiza and what was the damages award?

The U.S. jury found that Takeda Pharmaceutical engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to delay the release of a generic version of its constipation drug Amitiza, causing purchasers—including pharmacies, insurers, health funds, and retailers like CVS and Walgreens—to sustain approximately $885 million in damages due to overpayments. The jury determined Takeda liable in class-action lawsuits filed in 2021, marking the first time a drugmaker has been found liable by a jury in such litigation since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that reverse-payment agreements can violate antitrust law.

What was the nature of the 2014 settlement between Takeda/Sucampo and Par Pharmaceutical, and how did plaintiffs characterize it?

In 2014, Takeda and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Par Pharmaceutical by agreeing that Par would not launch its generic version of Amitiza until January 2021, at which point it could sell an authorized generic (lubiprostone) supplied by Sucampo under a 50–50 profit-sharing arrangement. Plaintiffs’ lawyers characterized this agreement in closing arguments as an illegal 'payoff' worth about $210 million that delayed generic competition for six years and constituted a reverse-payment or 'pay-for-delay' deal prohibited under antitrust law.

Takeda engaged in antitrust scheme to delay generic constipation drug, US jury finds

May 18, 2026

A U.S. jury found Takeda liable for $885 million in damages for delaying the generic release of its constipation drug Amitiza via an anticompetitive scheme. This marks the first time a drugmaker was held liable in class-action litigation over illegal reverse-payment agreements since 2013.

reuters

2026-05-18

Takeda engaged in antitrust scheme to delay generic constipation drug, US jury finds

Takeda engaged in antitrust scheme to delay generic constipation drug, US jury finds

FAQ