Actavis Inc.

News & Analysis as of

UK High Court confirms jurisdiction to grant cross-border declaration of non-infringement

In Actavis Group HF v. Eli Lilly & Co. the UK High Court has granted a declaration of non-infringement in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. A jurisdictional challenge in relation to the French, Italian and Spanish...more

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter

District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT)...more

IP Buzz - April 2014

In this issue: - Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis: An Analysis from a Transactional Perspective - Supreme Court to Consider Federal Circuit De Novo Review of Claim Construction in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc....more

Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis: An Analysis from a Transactional Perspective

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a denial of a preliminary injunction in Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic, LLC, in a decision that underscores...more

FTC Continues Aggressive Posture On Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements With Reference To Disgorgement

In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more

Court Report - March 10, 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Allergan, Inc. v. Actavis plc et al. 2:14-cv-00188; filed March 6, 2014 in the Eastern District of Texas. •...more

The Current Intersection of Antitrust and Managed Care

This article provides a summary of key healthcare antitrust developments in 2013, highlighted by two important Supreme Court decisions: - In FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.,133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013), the Court...more

Top Stories of 2013: #4 to #6

Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its seventh annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2013, we identified fourteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year...more

For the Common Good

For-profits and nonprofits in life sciences team up - Nonprofit groups are actively supporting research to solve tough medical challenges. Life sciences and pharma companies are eager to accelerate product development....more

The SPC Saga Continues

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) issued three judgments on grant of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) on 12 December 2013 in the cases: - C-493/12 Eli Lilly v HGS, - C- 443/12 Actavis v...more

Clearance: Proskauer's Quarterly Antitrust Update - Fall 2013

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Breyer, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of an FTC complaint under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission...more

News from Abroad: Further Referral by UK Patents Court to CJEU on Interpretation of SPC Regulation for Combination Products

The UK Patents Court recently issued a judgement which referred four questions to the CJEU in the case Actavis Group v Boehringer Ingelheim that aim to clarify how the SPC Regulation ought to be interpreted in respect of...more

News from Abroad: The Patents Court Considers the Appropriate Scope for Cross-Undertakings

Actavis v Boehringer [2013] EWHC 2927 related to a dispute over the combination of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide, which was marketed by Boehringer and protected by an SPC. Actavis wanted to sell the combination product...more

Supreme Court corner - Q3 2013

RECENT DECISIONS - Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis - Decided: 6/17/2013 Patent Holding: (5-3) reverse payment settlement agreements should be reviewed based on a “rule of reason. In a split...more

"Business Cases in the US Supreme Court"

The U.S. Supreme Court recently closed its 2012 term with its usual headline-grabbing flurry of June decisions. Several of those decisions, as well as many more that received less publicity, will affect business interests. In...more

Supreme Court, in FTC v. Actavis, rejects the “scope of the patent” test, holding that antitrust law’s “rule of reason” analysis...

Patent rights and antitrust law contain inherently antagonistic policies: While antitrust law is aimed at preventing monopolies and promoting competition, patent law explicitly rewards inventors with a time-limited right to...more

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Q&A: Implications for Pharmaceutical Companies

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may bring antitrust suits against so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, under which pioneer and generic...more

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 2

In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more

Supreme Court Subjects Reverse Payment Settlements to Antitrust Review

In a recent opinion with powerful implications for drug manufacturers, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in FTC v. Actavis that reverse payment settlement agreements can violate the antitrust laws despite the antitrust immunity...more

Supreme Court Applies Rule of Reason in Antitrust Challenges to Reverse-Payment Patent Settlements

One of the most controversial antitrust issues for the pharmaceutical industry during the last decade has been the treatment of patent settlements in which a patent-holding branded manufacturer made payments to its generic...more

High Court Finds Antitrust Scrutiny Applies to Pay-for-Delay Settlements

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust challenge to a reverse payment settlement agreement between drug manufacturers, otherwise known as a “pay-for-delay”...more

Supreme Court Holds That Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...more

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. – Supreme Court Holds Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements to be Analyzed under...

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. 570 U.S. __ (2013), Slip Op....more

“Reverse Payment” Settlements Subject to Greater Antitrust Scrutiny: Implications of Supreme Court FTC v. Actavis Ruling

By rejecting the “scope of the patent” test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” the Supreme Court of the United States subjects such settlements to greater antitrust...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rejection of the “Scope of the Patent” Test in FTC v. Actavis Has Wide-Ranging Implications

Key Points: - Patent settlements must be analyzed under the rule of reason, requiring a full analysis of the net competitive effects - Payments to an alleged infringer may be permissible if justified by, for...more

38 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2