Antitrust Claims Over Gout Drug Colcrys Head to Philadelphia, Where Near-Identical Case Already Went to Trial

MANHATTAN (LN) — A federal magistrate judge on Monday transferred a state antitrust class action against Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA to Philadelphia, concluding that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania — where a nearly identical federal case already went through a nine-day jury trial — is the more efficient home for claims that Takeda conspired with three generic manufacturers to delay competition and prop up the price of its gout drug Colcrys.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses granted Takeda's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), concluding that four of the nine standard transfer factors favored Philadelphia while the rest were neutral.

The plaintiffs — UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, Uniformed Fire Officers Association Family Protection Plan Local 854, and Uniformed Fire Officers Association for Retired Fire Officers Family Protection Plan — allege that Takeda, which sells the name-brand colchicine tablet Colcrys, struck anticompetitive settlement agreements with generic manufacturers Par Pharmaceutical, Watson Laboratories, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals to stagger their market entry and preserve elevated prices. According to the complaint, Colcrys peaked at $6.73 per tablet in January 2019. By 2021, the complaint alleges, after multiple non-conspiring competitors entered the market, the price of a colchicine pill had fallen to $0.1475 — approximately 2% of that peak.

The same core allegations were litigated in Value Drug Co. v. Takeda Pharm., U.S.A. Inc. in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney presided over two rounds of class certification, numerous Daubert motions, and a nine-day trial beginning September 5, 2023, before Takeda settled on the final day of trial — having already heard testimony from 36 witnesses, including nine experts.

Moses concluded that judicial efficiency alone carried significant weight. Under the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's current Local Rule 40.1, a newly filed case is deemed related to a prior case if it involves a transaction or occurrence which was the subject of an earlier numbered suit, and the assignment clerk shall assign the case to the same judge to whom the earlier numbered related case is assigned. That language, Moses noted, creates a strong presumption that the case would land back before Kearney.

The locus of operative facts also pointed toward Philadelphia. Takeda's predecessor, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., was headquartered there, and the complaint itself details how Mutual filed the New Drug Applications for Colcrys, obtained the patents plaintiffs call invalid, and initiated the Delaware patent infringement suits against the generic manufacturers that plaintiffs say were the first step in the overarching conspiracy. Moses agreed with Takeda that, between the two venues, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has a closer nexus to those facts.

The only real fight over the transfer was whether defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals — incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in New Jersey — could be hauled into a Pennsylvania court at all. Amneal argued that Pennsylvania's consent-by-registration statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause as applied to a company without substantial Pennsylvania operations. Moses rejected both arguments, relying on Judge Kearney's own March 2026 ruling in Blade v. Sig Sauer, Inc., as well as several other district court decisions, in which courts concluded that registration alone — regardless of operational footprint — is sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction under the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Amneal has held a Pennsylvania certificate of registration since February 19, 2015.

The plaintiffs themselves did not oppose the transfer, telling the court they are prepared to proceed in whichever venue the Court deems most appropriate — so long as the case goes to Kearney specifically. They said they would oppose transfer if it went to a different judge in Philadelphia.

Before any generic competition arrived, the complaint alleges, colchicine had been available from at least 21 companies at roughly $0.09 per pill; plaintiffs allege that Takeda's temporary monopoly, secured through FDA exclusivities granted in 2009, allowed it to raise the price dramatically.