context: Moreover, neither the Supreme Court in Actavis nor this Court in King Drug Co. required such detailed allegations at the pleading stage. The complaint in Actavis simply alleged that the. patentee paid various sums of money to generic manufacturers to induce them to delay their entry into the paten-tee's pharmaceutical drug market.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 814 F.3d 552, 552
citation_a.parenthetical: "[Pllaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to support the legal conclusion that the settlement at issue involves a large and unjustified reverse payment under Actavis."
citation_a.sentence: King Drug Co., 791 F.3d at 410. The facts alleged by Effe-xor plaintiffs similarly, and thus plausibly, allege that Wyeth leveraged its extremely valuable promise not to enter the generic market with an authorized generic in exchange for Teva’s promise to delay entry into the Effexor XR market. See King Drug Co., 791 F.3d at 409 (allegations that patentee “sought to induce [the generic manufacturer] to delay its entry into the [relevant pharmaceutical drug] market by way of an unjustified no-AG agreement” sufficiently stated a claim “under Twombly and Iqbal for violation of the Sherman Act”); see also Loestrin, 814 F.3d at 552 (“[Pllaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to support the legal conclusion that the settlement at issue involves a large and unjustified reverse payment under Actavis.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 791 F.3d 409, 409
citation_b.parenthetical: allegations that patentee "sought to induce [the generic manufacturer] to delay its entry into the [relevant pharmaceutical drug] market by way of an unjustified no-AG agreement" sufficiently stated a claim "under Twombly and Iqbal for violation of the Sherman Act"
citation_b.sentence: King Drug Co., 791 F.3d at 410. The facts alleged by Effe-xor plaintiffs similarly, and thus plausibly, allege that Wyeth leveraged its extremely valuable promise not to enter the generic market with an authorized generic in exchange for Teva’s promise to delay entry into the Effexor XR market. See King Drug Co., 791 F.3d at 409 (allegations that patentee “sought to induce [the generic manufacturer] to delay its entry into the [relevant pharmaceutical drug] market by way of an unjustified no-AG agreement” sufficiently stated a claim “under Twombly and Iqbal for violation of the Sherman Act”); see also Loestrin, 814 F.3d at 552 (“[Pllaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to support the legal conclusion that the settlement at issue involves a large and unjustified reverse payment under Actavis.”).