> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# AndroGel Case Remanded to Pennsylvania Federal Court
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/androgel-case-remanded-to-pennsylvania-federal-court/
- Published: 2020-10-01T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T16:31:05.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, #legacy-id-D5147783

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded to a Pennsylvania federal court a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case charging that the owners of the AndroGel patent—AbbVie, Abbott, Unimed Pharmaceuticals, and Besins Healthcare—filed sham patent infringement suits against Teva and Perrigo and that AbbVie, Abbott, and Unimed entered into an anticompetitive reverse-payment agreement with Teva. The appeals court [said](http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/182621p.pdf?ref=fdaweb.com) the FTC had accused the patent holders of trying to monopolize and restrain trade over AndroGel.

The Pennsylvania federal district court had dismissed the FTC’s claims to the extent that they relied on a reverse-payment theory, but found the companies liable for monopolization on the sham-litigation theory. The court had ordered the defendants to disgorge $448 million in ill-gotten profits and denied an FTC request for an injunction.

A three-judge 3rd Circuit panel said the lower court erred by rejecting the reverse-payment theory and in concluding that the defendants’ litigation against Teva was a sham. The judges said the district court did not err in concluding that the Perrigo litigation was a sham and that the defendants had monopoly power in the relevant market. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying injunctive relief, the appeals court said, but erred by ordering disgorgement since that remedy is not available under the FTC Act.

The decision reinstates the dismissed FTC claims and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the 3rd Circuit opinion. It also affirms in part and reverses in part the lower court’s order adjudging the defendant companies liable for monopolization, and affirms the order denying injunctive relief and reverses the order requiring disgorgement.