Sun Pharmaceutical and Taro Pharmaceuticals can use their $200 million settlement with the "end payors" for generic drugs in an alleged price-fixing scheme as a defense in a similar lawsuit brought by 47 states and territories, the Connecticut federal judge overseeing the case ruled Wednesday.

In an order posted only to the case's docket, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea said Sun and Taro could amend their list of affirmative defenses in the Connecticut case to reflect the settlement and release in a sprawling, Pennsylvania-based multidistrict litigation, though he said the defense would not give the drugmakers a do-over on past motions practice.

"I express no opinion on whether Sun and Taro can sustain their new defenses, but I note that I am not going to reopen summary judgment practice in this case," the judge's order said. "I set the schedule for summary judgment motions long ago, and there are many such motions still pending, including those of Sun and Taro. Sun and Taro may prosecute their defenses at trial, either through motions in limine or a motion for directed verdict."

The judge pointed back to a similar order he'd granted for Sandoz on Feb. 17, after the drugmaker and its subsidiaries signed a $275 million deal last year.

Sun, Taro, Sandoz and others face a raft of antitrust litigation over claims that the companies conspired to keep the prices of certain generic drugs artificially inflated.

While consumers' litigation has proceeded in the Pennsylvania MDL, cases brought by state and territorial attorneys general were consolidated in Connecticut and have been proceeding separately, with the judge overseeing the MDL only allowing the attorneys general to join her cases as amici.

In that capacity, the states have asked the MDL court to ensure the various settlements there do not preclude them from pursuing their own cases, and have used the possibility that the drugmakers could point to the settlements as defenses in their unsuccessful objections to the deals.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The defendants are represented by John Taladay, Christopher Wilson, Edward William Duffy, JoAnna B. Adkisson and Michael Anthony Munoz of Baker Botts LLP, Jennifer L. Morgan of Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC, Dorothea Allocca of Clifford Chance LLP, and Jeffrey Mueller of Day Pitney LLP.

The case is Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz et al., case number 3:20-cv-00802, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.