9th Circuit affirms jury verdict against Tevra Brands in antitrust suit over flea/tick products, ruling…
Tevra Brands, LLC v. Bayer Healthcare LLC
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit affirms jury verdict against Tevra Brands in antitrust suit over flea/tick products, ruling the company waived key claims and failed to prove its market definition.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict in favor of Bayer HealthCare after Tevra Brands, which makes generic flea and tick products, sued Bayer for antitrust violations. The court found that Tevra had waived its original market definition by voluntarily abandoning it when it filed an amended complaint, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Bayer's expert testimony and a consumer survey into evidence. Because the jury unanimously found that Tevra failed to prove its claimed antitrust market, the appellate court affirmed the outcome in full.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects companies that produce generic consumer products and seek to bring antitrust claims against brand-name competitors, as it reinforces that plaintiffs who revise their market definition in an amended complaint may waive the right to appeal the dismissal of their earlier definition. It also affects how parties in antitrust cases may challenge expert testimony and consumer surveys.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 14, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 14, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 14, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Tevra Brands makes generic versions of Bayer HealthCare's flea and tick topical products, which use an active ingredient called imidacloprid. Tevra sued Bayer in federal court alleging violations of federal antitrust law, claiming Bayer had unlawfully dominated a specific market for imidacloprid-based topical products sold to over-the-counter retailers. The district court dismissed Tevra's first complaint, finding the market definition legally insufficient, but gave Tevra permission to file a revised complaint. Tevra then filed a new complaint with a broader market definition rather than trying to preserve the original one. The case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found that Tevra had not proven its antitrust market definition. Tevra appealed on three grounds. First, Tevra argued the district court was wrong to dismiss its original, narrower market definition. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that Tevra waived it. Because the district court dismissed that complaint with leave to amend, and Tevra chose to file a new complaint with a different market definition rather than fighting to preserve the old one, Tevra voluntarily abandoned the original claim. A party cannot appeal a ruling on a claim it chose not to pursue further. Second, Tevra argued the district court should have barred Bayer's expert witness, Dr. Celeste Saravia, from testifying about market definition. Under the legal standard known as Daubert, expert testimony must be relevant and reliable. Tevra contended that Dr. Saravia's use of a qualitative version of the Hypothetical Monopolist Test was unreliable and based on insufficient data. The appellate court disagreed, finding that using qualitative evidence of how consumers and industry participants respond to price changes is a recognized and reasonable methodology. The district court had properly examined the evidence underlying the expert's opinion and was within its broad discretion to allow the testimony. Third, Tevra argued the district court should have excluded a consumer survey, commissioned by Bayer, about consumers' willingness to pay for the products. Tevra challenged both the survey's relevance and its reliability. The appellate court found the district court acted within its discretion in allowing the survey, noting it was reasonable to infer that consumer data reflects how retailers and distributors view whether products are substitutes for one another. The court also noted that Tevra's critiques of the survey's methodology went to how much weight the jury should give it, not whether it should be admitted at all. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment on all three issues. There was no dissent.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 14 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TEVRA BRANDS, LLC, No. 25-1044 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 5:19-cv-04312-BLF v. MEMORANDUM* BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and BAYER ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 25, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KOH and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Plaintiff-Appellant Tevra Brands, LLC (“Tevra”) produces generic alternatives to Defendant-Appellee Bayer HealthCare, LLC’s (“Bayer”) flea and tick topical for dogs and cats with the active ingredient imidacloprid. Tevra filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in February 2020, alleging violations of the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. The claims were based on an alleged relevant antitrust market of topical flea and tick products containing imidacloprid sold at wholesale by manufacturers to over-the-counter retailers in the United States, as well as several sub-markets. The district court found that Tevra’s proposed market was not facially sustainable and dismissed the FAC with leave to amend. In Tevra’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Tevra alleged a broader definition of the relevant market, which included all sales of imidacloprid topicals in the United States. The district court found that Bayer’s evidence did not undermine Tevra’s allegations as to the proposed relevant market at the pleading stage. The case proceeded to trial on Tevra’s SAC. The jury unanimously found that Tevra failed to prove its alleged antitrust market. Tevra seeks relief from this Court, arguing that the district court incorrectly precluded Tevra from presenting a meritorious market definition by dismissing Tevra’s FAC, and that the district court erred in denying Tevra’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Tevra’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. We have 2 25-1044 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 1. The Court reviews de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss. Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2017). However, Tevra waived the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the FAC with leave to amend. A plaintiff is not required to replead claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve those claims for appeal. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not replead.” Id. Here, the district court dismissed Tevra’s FAC with leave to amend for failure to sufficiently plead a relevant antitrust market definition. Tevra filed its SAC with a broader market definition, and the record reflects that Tevra did not attempt to preserve its dismissed market definition before the district court. Thus, Tevra voluntarily abandoned its market definition as pleaded in the FAC. When a voluntarily abandoned claim forms the basis for a district court order, the issue of whether the district court erred in its order is waived. See Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 960–61 (9th Cir. 2013). 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tevra’s Daubert motion to exclude testimony regarding market definition from Bayer’s expert, Dr. Celeste Saravia. See Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 3 25-1044 2022). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable, and “[d]istrict courts are vested with broad latitude to decide how to test an expert’s reliability and whether or not an expert’s relevant testimony is reliable.” Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, 124 F.4th 555, 566 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Tevra argues that the district court should not have accepted Dr. Saravia’s qualitative Hypothetical Monopolist Test (“HMT”) as a reliable methodology for its market inquiry and that Dr. Saravia’s method and opinion were based on insufficient facts and data. But the use of qualitative evidence of cross-elasticity of demand to implement an HMT as a methodology does “not fall outside the range where experts might reasonably differ.” Id. at 569 (citation omitted). The district court examined the evidence that Dr. Saravia relied upon, including documents about how industry participants and consumers react to price changes and sales by competitors (reliable evidence under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, see Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010 ed.) § 4.1.3), and reasonably concluded that Dr. Saravia’s opinion was supported by sufficient and reliable evidence. 3. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tevra’s motion in limine to exclude a willingness to pay survey conducted by Bayer. See Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021). District courts receive “great deference” in applying Federal Rule of Evidence 403. United 4 25-1044 States v. Cabrera, 83 F.4th 729, 736 (9th Cir. 2023). The record supports the district court’s conclusion that it is reasonable to infer that consumer data reflects retailers’ and distributors’ perspective on substitutability. And to the extent that Tevra challenged the reliability of the survey or critiqued its conclusions, these issues “go to the weight of the survey rather than its admissibility.” See BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc., 105 F.4th 1269, 1275 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1263 (9th Cir. 2001)). AFFIRMED. 5 25-1044
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.