In a complaint alleging that defendants delayed competitors from marketing generic versions of the diabetes drug ACTOS by falsely describing two patents to the Food and Drug Administration, thereby causing plaintiffs to pay monopoly prices for the drug in violation of state-law analogs of the Sherman Act, the district court's dismissal of the complaint for failure to plausibly allege that the false descriptions caused the delay is: 1) affirmed in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory posits a delay in the marketing of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants other than Teva, where plaintiffs' theory presupposes that these applicants were aware of Takeda's allegedly false patent descriptions when they filed their applications, which is not supported by well-pleaded allegations and 2) vacated in part to the extent plaintiffs' theory as to Teva does not require any knowledge of the false patent descriptions, where plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Takeda delayed Teva's market entry.