Home » Briefs » In Re Prograf Antitrust Litigation


Econ One’s expert economists have experience across a wide variety of services including antitrust, class certification, damages, financial markets and securities, intellectual property, international arbitration, labor and employment, and valuation and financial analysis.


Econ One’s resources including blogs, cases, news, and more provide a collection of materials from Econ One’s experts.

Cases and Engagements

Get an Inside look at Economics with the experts.
Managing Director

Ph.D. in Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

M.A. in Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

B.S. in Economics, Santa Clara University

Econ One, President, 1997 – Present

Founded Econ One, 1997

Micronomics, Inc., President and CEO, 1994 – 1997

Micronomics, Inc., Executive Vice President, 1988 – 1997

Cofounded Micronomics, Inc., 1988

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (Last position was Senior Vice President and member of the Board of Directors) 1980 – 1988

U.S. District Court

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

State Court

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Various state tax and regulatory commissions

Private arbitration

International Arbitration

Share this Article
September 25, 2015

In Re Prograf Antitrust Litigation

Econ One was retained by counsel for the plaintiffs in the In Re Prograf Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs were a class of direct purchasers of the brand name prescription drug Prograf, an immunosuppressant. They alleged that the defendants violated antitrust laws by improperly delaying the market entry of cheaper generic substitutes to Prograf.

Econ One expert Jeffrey Leitzinger submitted an expert report relating to class certification issues. Those issues included the likely impact of a delay in generic competition on the class members, the availability of common, class-wide economic evidence and methodologies that would demonstrate class-wide impact in the form of overcharges, and whether those overcharges could be calculated as a whole on an aggregate basis using reliable methodologies.  Dr. Leitzinger also submitted an expert report addressing the issues of monopoly power, market definition, and aggregate overcharge damages, as well as a rebuttal report on those same topics. After the class was certified, Dr. Leitzinger provided deposition testimony. The case was settled prior to trial.  Dr. Leitzinger then submitted a proposed allocation plan for damages to the court in support of the settlement. The court approved both his damages and allocation methodologies as fair and reasonable.

Industries: Pharmaceutical

Latest Related Resources and Insights