J&J Oklahoma Judgement May Set Benchmark For Massive Opioid Resolution

Judge orders J&J to pay $572m for one-year abatement plan; the state had proposed $12bn over 20-year period. J&J's gamble on a trial has so far not succeeded, since it is now facing more than twice the payout that Purdue agreed to in a settlement.

Judge or auction gavel on Oklahoma US of America waving flag background. 3d illustration - Illustration

Johnson & Johnson lost a gamble in going to trial over Oklahoma's claims it helped create the opioid crisis as a district court judge issued a $572m judgement against the company to fund a one-year abatement plan. The sum is $300m more than Purdue agreed to pay in its settlement with the state but a fraction of the $12.8bn the state estimated it would cost to ameliorate the crisis over a 20-year period.

Oklahoma alleged that J&J and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. unit engaged in a false, misleading, and deceptive marketing campaign designed to convince Oklahoma doctors, patients, and the public at...

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on Pink Sheet for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required

More from Legal & IP

How Pharma Companies Can Mitigate The Impact Of US Tariffs On The Supply Chain

 
• By 

If US tariffs on pharmaceutical supply chain products come into force they could be disruptive for companies. Ewan Townsend, of the international law firm Arnold & Porter, explains how companies can mitigate issues through negotiating with suppliers and reallocating tariff responsibilities.

US FDA’s ‘Good Reputation’ For Science May Mean Loper Bright Not ‘Cataclysmic,’ Attorney Says

 

Bridget Dooling, a law school professor who reviewed draft regulations from the FDA and other agencies as an OMB attorney, said prior federal court decisions suggest judges typically defer to agency decisions based in science.

Europe’s UPC Issues Landmark Ruling On Second Medical Use Claims

 

The verdict by the Unified Patent Court in the dispute between Sanofi/Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Amgen explains what companies should look out for when deciding whether infringement has taken place when it comes to second medical use patents.

Life After Loper: Vaping Case Shows US FDA Retains Considerable Deference

 
• By 

A US Supreme Court ruling in favor of the agency in an e-cigarette case has implications for drugs and other medical products as the justices decided not to disturb the FDA’s ‘change in position’ authority, while also creating a complex new landscape.

More from Pink Sheet

How Pharma Companies Can Mitigate The Impact Of US Tariffs On The Supply Chain

 
• By 

If US tariffs on pharmaceutical supply chain products come into force they could be disruptive for companies. Ewan Townsend, of the international law firm Arnold & Porter, explains how companies can mitigate issues through negotiating with suppliers and reallocating tariff responsibilities.

‘The Question Is, What’s Going To Happen Next?’ – The Future For Biosimilars In Europe

 
• By 

With European biosimilars developers buoyed by recent regulatory moves, Medicines for Europe’s Isabell Remus and Julie Maréchal-Jamil discuss the next steps forward for the industry.