- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
February 22, 2021Robins Kaplan Expands Health Care Litigation Group
-
February 1, 2021Meegan Hollywood Selected to Join American Antitrust Institute Advisory Board
-
January 28, 2021Human Rights Campaign Names Robins Kaplan LLP a “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ Equality” for the Thirteenth Consecutive Year
-
February 26, 2021Key Decisions Affecting Drug and Device Litigation in the Last Year
-
March 6, 2021With Our Voices 2021 Arc Gala
-
March 6, 20211st Annual Tee It Up for the Troops Winter Outing
-
Winter 2021Pro Bono Publico–For The Public Good
-
Winter 2021The Case for Charitable Giving
-
Winter 2021The Fictional Wealth Disputes That We Took In and Learned From in 2020
-
February 25, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.25.2021 | Top Story: McKinsey Ousts Managing Partner on Heels of Opioid Settlement
-
February 24, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.24.2021 | Top Story: Chair Powell Promises Continued Fed Support for US Economy
-
February 23, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.23.2021 | Top Story: SoftBank Nears Deal With WeWork’s Neumann for $500M Share Purchase
Co-Lead Counsel on Behalf of Director Purchasers of the Mumps Vaccine
In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation, 13-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa.)
Robins Kaplan serves as court-appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of the mumps vaccine from Merck. Plaintiffs allege that Merck unlawfully monopolized the U.S. market by engaging in a decade-long scheme to exclude competing manufacturers from the U.S. market. Plaintiffs allege that Merck did so in part by falsely claiming that its vaccine had an efficacy rate of 95% or higher, thus “raising the bar” for any competitor to match that efficacy rate and receive regulatory approval. Plaintiffs defeated Merck’s motion to dismiss and in July 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to strike two former FDA officials that Merck retained as fact witnesses. The case is ongoing.
Similar Results
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.