Teva Tells Court a Jury Could Find Corcept Used a Pharmacy Deal to Block Generic Korlym

Teva Pharmaceuticals has told a federal court in California that there is enough evidence for a jury to find that Corcept Therapeutics used an exclusive distribution deal with a specialty pharmacy to block generic competition for its Cushing's syndrome drug Korlym. Law360 reported the filing on November 9. It answers Corcept's October request that the court end the case before trial. Corcept has said there is no evidence it blocked generic entry, according to Law360's report of that motion.

What Teva alleges

Teva sued in June 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to Teva's quarterly report to the SEC, the suit alleges that Corcept and the specialty pharmacy Optime Care engaged in a years-long scheme to stifle generic competition to Korlym (mifepristone). Teva alleges three things:

• that the two companies abused the patent and judicial systems;
• that they entered a long-term, blanket exclusive-dealing agreement that locked up a key distribution channel; and
• that they made illicit payments to physicians as compensation for prescribing Korlym.

Teva seeks compensatory damages for lost sales and profits from generic mifepristone, plus an injunction to remove what it calls unlawful barriers to generic competition.

Reuters, reporting on an earlier ruling, said the complaint describes an arrangement that bars Optime, Korlym's sole distributor, from distributing any medication that competes with Korlym. Teva also said it launched a less expensive generic but captured close to zero market share. Korlym treats Cushing's syndrome, a rare disorder caused by too much cortisol. Teva's lawsuit puts the U.S. patient population at about 20,000. Mifepristone is also used in medication abortion, but the product at issue here is prescribed for a different condition.

Corcept and Optime have denied wrongdoing. In seeking dismissal, Corcept called the case a "sour grapes lawsuit," according to Reuters. Optime described Teva's claims against it as "entirely fanciful." These are allegations and defenses. No court has made findings on liability.

Where the case stands

The court has let most of the case go forward. Teva's filing says the defendants moved to dismiss in October 2024, and the court denied that motion in substantial part on September 12, 2025. On January 29, 2026, Teva filed an amended complaint adding a claim for unlawful exclusive dealing against Corcept. The court again denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part on May 5, 2026. Teva's report said discovery was ongoing as of its late-July filing.

Pretrial skirmishing has since moved to evidence and experts. Corcept asked the court in October to bar testimony from Kathleen O'Malley, a retired Federal Circuit judge whom Teva retained as an expert, according to CPI's report citing Reuters. Corcept argues her opinions address legal questions that jurors must decide, and that her judicial background could lend her conclusions undue weight. The same report says Corcept has disclosed that the antitrust case is set for trial in March 2027. It also says a separate Corcept motion argues that discovery did not establish Teva's theory about the distribution agreements.

The patent track is separate. In February 2026, the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court's finding that Teva's proposed generic did not infringe two Corcept patents covering methods of administering mifepristone, per the CPI report. Teva's antitrust complaint draws on that earlier patent fight, alleging that Corcept's infringement claims were part of the scheme.

What this means for in-house counsel

Exclusive distribution terms deserve a fresh look at companies that sell through specialty pharmacies or other narrow channels. The Korlym case turns in part on whether a long-term arrangement that keeps a distributor from handling competing products can be shown to have shut a rival out. Counsel should check what each exclusivity clause is meant to achieve, whether less restrictive terms would do, and whether the business record explains the arrangement in terms a jury would find credible. Internal emails describing exclusivity as a way to keep generics out are the kind of evidence this litigation is testing.

Brand companies should also treat their own patent enforcement as part of the antitrust file. Teva alleges that Corcept's patent suits were part of a wider scheme. Corcept denies it, and the court has let the claims proceed. Litigation decisions should be documented with their merits-based rationale, and the legal department should keep clear lines between enforcement strategy and commercial exclusion strategy. The same discipline applies to payments to prescribers, which Teva also alleges were improper. Those arrangements should be reviewed against fair-market-value and compliance standards before a competitor frames them as a monopolization tactic.

For litigation planning, the expert fight is a reminder to scope retained experts carefully. A high-profile former judge may add credibility, but opposing counsel can attack opinions that stray into legal conclusions. Legal departments should also confirm that SEC litigation disclosures and the court record tell the same story, since both sides' public statements are being read side by side.