You're using a free limited version of DrugPatentWatch: Upgrade for Complete Access

Last Updated: July 29, 2025

Litigation Details for Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (S.D. Tex. 2023)


✉ Email this page to a colleague

« Back to Dashboard


Small Molecule Drugs cited in Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc.
The small molecule drugs covered by the patents cited in this case are ⤷  Try for Free , ⤷  Try for Free , and ⤷  Try for Free .
Biologic Drugs cited in Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc.
The biologic drug covered by the patents cited in this case is ⤷  Try for Free .

Details for Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (S.D. Tex. 2023)

Date FiledDocument No.DescriptionSnippetLink To Document
2023-09-21 External link to document
2023-09-21 81 Appendix Appendix of Authorities particles. This patent first issued in 1997 and re-issued in 2002 as U.S. Patent No. RE37,516 (the “Particle…notify the patent holder of the filing of its ANDA. If the patent holder initiates a patent infringement… only then-remaining patent that covered Provigil, a narrow formulation patent relating to the size of…version does not infringe the patents on the brand-name drug, or (2) the patents are invalid. This is referred… the earliest of (1) patent expiry, (2) district court resolution of the patent litigation in favor of External link to document
2023-09-21 119 Second Appendix of Authorities No. 6,503,894 ('894 patent). Although exclusivity upon FDA approval, which is similar to…Generics within the forty-five day window of patent, drug patents grant brand name manufacturers a legal … a similar schedule. FDA, (2) the patent has expired, (3) the patent will expire on a …holder of the ANDA. 6 If the patent holder decides to file patent as well as claims construction…issued a patent on ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification receives generic AndroGel, U.S. Patent No. External link to document
>Date Filed>Document No.>Description>Snippet>Link To Document
Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries

Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc.: A Comprehensive Litigation Summary and Analysis

Last updated: July 27, 2025

Introduction

The case of Federal Trade Commission v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (4:23-cv-03560) involves a significant antitrust lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (USAP) and the private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (Welsh Carson). Here, we delve into the key aspects of the case, including the allegations, the court's rulings, and the implications for antitrust law.

Allegations by the FTC

The FTC alleged that USAP and Welsh Carson engaged in a multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate and monopolize the anesthesiology market in Texas. This scheme involved a three-part strategy:

  • Roll-up Acquisitions: Systematically buying up nearly every large anesthesia practice in Texas to create a dominant provider with the power to demand higher prices[3][5].
  • Price-Setting Agreements: Entering into or maintaining arrangements that allowed USAP to charge market-leading prices for services provided by independent anesthesia groups at key hospitals in Houston and Dallas[3].
  • Market Allocation Agreement: Securing a promise from another large anesthesia services provider to stay out of USAP’s territory, further solidifying USAP’s market dominance[3].

The FTC claimed that these actions resulted in unlawful monopolization, unlawful acquisitions, a conspiracy to monopolize, unfair methods of competition, and unlawful restraints of trade, all of which violate the FTC Act and the Clayton Act[3].

Motions to Dismiss

Both Welsh Carson and USAP filed separate motions to dismiss the FTC's lawsuit.

Welsh Carson's Motion to Dismiss

The court granted Welsh Carson's motion to dismiss on May 13, 2024. The key points of the court's decision include:

  • Lack of Ongoing Antitrust Violations: The court determined that the FTC had not adequately alleged that Welsh Carson was currently violating or about to violate antitrust laws. The FTC's arguments that receiving profits from an entity that may be violating antitrust laws and continuing to hold stock in USAP constituted ongoing antitrust violations were rejected[1][4][5].
  • No Liability for Minority Investors: The court held that a minority, noncontrolling investor like Welsh Carson, which holds a 23% stake in USAP, cannot be held legally responsible for the company's alleged anticompetitive conduct simply because it profited from it. The court noted that the FTC had not cited any authority to support the proposition that receiving such profits is itself a violation of antitrust laws[5].

USAP's Motion to Dismiss

In contrast, the court denied USAP's motion to dismiss. The court found that the FTC had adequately alleged that USAP is currently or about to violate antitrust laws. The key points include:

  • Ongoing Monopolization Scheme: The court noted that USAP continues to own the anesthesia groups it unlawfully acquired, maintains price-setting arrangements, and charges high prices, all of which contribute to its monopolization scheme[1][4].
  • Statutory Authority: The court determined that the FTC is within its statutory authority to bring these claims, as the acquisitions and ongoing activities by USAP plausibly contribute to the monopoly power and unfair competition alleged in the complaint[1].

Court's Holding and Implications

The court's decision has significant implications for antitrust law and private equity firms.

  • Limits on FTC Authority: The ruling reinforces the limits on the FTC’s authority to pursue claims against minority investors for past conduct. It emphasizes that the FTC must demonstrate more than mere speculation or conjecture to hold a minority investor liable for anticompetitive conduct[5].
  • Framework for Private Equity Liability: The court's opinion provides guidance on the framework for potential liability of private equity sponsors involved in roll-up or serial acquisition strategies, particularly in the healthcare context. It highlights that the facts surrounding ownership and involvement at the time of the lawsuit are crucial in determining liability[1].

Quotes and Insights from Industry Experts

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan emphasized the FTC's commitment to scrutinizing and challenging serial acquisitions and roll-up strategies that undermine fair competition: "Private equity firm Welsh Carson spearheaded a roll-up strategy and created USAP to buy out nearly every large anesthesiology practice in Texas. Along with a set of unlawful agreements to set prices and allocate markets, these tactics enabled USAP and Welsh Carson to raise prices for anesthesia services—raking in tens of millions of extra dollars for these executives at the expense of Texas patients and businesses,"[3].

Statistics and Economic Impact

The FTC alleged that USAP’s multi-pronged anticompetitive strategy has cost Texans tens of millions of dollars more each year in anesthesia services than before USAP was created. As USAP bought each anesthesia practice, it raised the acquired group’s rates to USAP’s higher rates, resulting in a substantial markup for the same services[3].

Key Takeaways

  • Private Equity Firm Liability: A private equity firm with a minority stake in a company cannot be held liable for the company's anticompetitive conduct based solely on its ownership and profits.
  • FTC Authority: The FTC must demonstrate concrete evidence of ongoing or imminent antitrust violations to pursue claims against private equity firms.
  • Antitrust Law Implications: The case sets a precedent that antitrust laws require more than speculative claims to hold minority investors accountable for a company's actions.
  • Healthcare Market Impact: The consolidation of anesthesiology practices can lead to significant price increases and reduced competition, highlighting the need for stringent antitrust enforcement in healthcare markets.

FAQs

  1. What was the main allegation against USAP and Welsh Carson in the FTC lawsuit?

    • The FTC alleged that USAP and Welsh Carson engaged in a multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate and monopolize the anesthesiology market in Texas through roll-up acquisitions, price-setting agreements, and market allocation arrangements.
  2. Why was Welsh Carson's motion to dismiss granted?

    • The court granted Welsh Carson's motion to dismiss because the FTC did not adequately allege that Welsh Carson was currently violating or about to violate antitrust laws, and receiving profits from an entity that may be violating antitrust laws is not considered an ongoing antitrust violation.
  3. What was the outcome for USAP's motion to dismiss?

    • The court denied USAP's motion to dismiss, finding that the FTC had adequately alleged that USAP is currently or about to violate antitrust laws due to its ongoing monopolization scheme and price-setting arrangements.
  4. What are the implications of this ruling for private equity firms?

    • The ruling sets a precedent that private equity firms with minority stakes in companies cannot be held liable for the company's anticompetitive conduct based solely on their ownership and profits, unless there is concrete evidence of ongoing or imminent antitrust violations.
  5. How has this case affected the healthcare market in Texas?

    • The case highlights that the consolidation of anesthesiology practices led to significant price increases and reduced competition in Texas, emphasizing the need for stringent antitrust enforcement in healthcare markets.

Cited Sources

  1. Hogan Lovells: "Private Equity Firm Welsh Carson Dismissed from FTC Antitrust Action"[1]
  2. Federal Trade Commission: "U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc., FTC v. | Federal Trade Commission"[2]
  3. Federal Trade Commission: "FTC Challenges Private Equity Firm's Scheme to Suppress Competition in Anesthesiology Practices Across Texas"[3]
  4. Goodwin Law: "District Court Grants Welsh Carson's Motion to Dismiss in FTC's Antitrust Action"[4]
  5. Yetter Coleman: "Understanding the Implications: FTC v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners Inc. et al."[5]

More… ↓

⤷  Try for Free

Make Better Decisions: Try a trial or see plans & pricing

Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors. Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data. The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free. thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.