IS THE A IN ANDA BEGINNING TO MEAN ANTITRUST?
Summary - On June 10, 2024, the District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered Teva to delist five patents from the Orange Book for ProAir® HFA (albuterol sulfate) Inhalation Aerosol. The patents were directed to...more
In recent months, the issue of whether certain patents are appropriately listed in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book, associated with the Hatch-Waxman Act, has garnered the attention of the Federal Trade...more
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, forms the current framework for the United States’ regulation of drug approvals. The law amended the Food, Drug, and...more
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has filed an amicus brief in Teva Branded Pharmaceuticals Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC to further the agency’s efforts to promote and protect generic drug...more
Hosted by American Conference Institute, the 20th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes & the 40th Anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Act returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will take a retrospective look at...more
The FTC is focusing its attention on the listing of pharmaceutical patents in the FDA’s Orange Book. Patent listing may be the subject of FTC inquiry even absent infringement litigation enforcing the relevant patents....more
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued AbbVie and Besins Healthcare, co-owners of a patent that covered brand AndroGel, in 2017. The FTC claimed that the manufacturers had brought “sham” patent infringement litigation in...more
Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) spent the better part of a decade attacking the practice of innovator drug companies settling ANDA litigation by providing payments to generic applicants challenging the validity of Orange...more
This month, we highlight significant developments in May 2018, including a stunning reverse payment decision at the FTC, draft guidance from the FDA intended to curb REMS “abuses,” and case law developments at the Federal...more
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more
A recent complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicates that the agency is continuing its aggressive pursuit of agreements between drug manufacturers that delay the entry of generic pharmaceuticals into the...more
This alert, the title of which is adapted from a March 30, 2016 FTC Staff Attorney blog post, considers the FTC's first lawsuit challenging a so-called "no-AG" agreement. No-AG agreements are components of Hatch-Waxman...more
In January, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on the terms of settlement agreements between branded and generic drug companies in ANDA litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act, according to the provisions of the...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court, applying the...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
On June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a consent order (the “Consent Order”) between the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Cephalon, Inc. and its parent, Teva...more
On May 28, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. (now owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.), which alleged that Cephalon had made “reverse...more
In This Issue: - INTRODUCTION - WHAT ARE REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? ..The Basic Framework of Hatch-Waxman Litigation ..The Federal Trade Commission’s View of Reverse Payment Settlements and Its...more
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that addressed a “reverse payment” settlement agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company (plaintiff patent holder) and multiple generic drug companies...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more
Par PharmaceuticalPar/Paddock, one of the generic drug company defendants in FTC v. Actavis Inc. et al. (the "reverse payment" ANDA settlement case now before the Supreme Court) filed its reponsive brief last week. In it,...more