Dermatology Expert Opines On Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

    Dermatology Expert

    Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
    Jurisdiction: Federal
    Case Name: In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litig.
    Citation: 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11921


    This was class action suit wherein direct purchaser plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation and Impax Laboratories, Inc., violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and end-payor plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have violated various state laws. The remaining claim of retailer plaintiffs was that the defendants’ actions violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.

    The parties filed motions to exclude the testimony of each other’s experts. A Daubert motion was moved for the plaintiffs’ dermatology expert.

    Expert Witness Specialty Index

    Need a dermatology expert witness?

    Explore a sample of our expert network.

    Browse Experts

    The Dermatology Expert

    The plaintiffs’ dermatology expert was an associate professor of dermatology at the Boston University School of Medicine. She was also the founder and director of the Center for Ethnic Skin as well as the director of the Cosmetic and Laser Center.

    The defendants moved to exclude portions of the testimony of the plaintiffs’ dermatology expert. The defendants contended that the expert misunderstood the term “interchangeable” to mean “pharmacological equivalence” rather than “functional interchangeability,” making her testimony unreliable and irrelevant. The defendants also argued that the testimony of the plaintiffs’ dermatology expert completely contradicted her own medical practices on interchangeability.

    The defendants further sought to exclude the expert’s opinion with regard to the clinical value of Solodyn Add-On Strengths.


    The court denied defendant’s motion to exclude portions of testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert.

    The court observed that the definition of interchangeability by the defendant might differ from the expert’s definition. However, it would be relevant for the jury based on her experience and documents and medical literature relied upon. The court rejected the defendants’ contentions against the expert’s opinion regarding the clinical value of Solodyn Add-On Strengths, asserting that they went to the weight of her opinion.

    It was determined that the court must ensure that a dermatological expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.