Instapundit: America's IP Laws Need to be "Pruned Back"
Last week we posted a discussion concerning effective antitrust corporate compliance programs, and provided some factors that in-house counsel should consider in developing compliance programs governing employees’...more
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has often stated that merger analysis requires more than a simplistic determination that high market concentration leads to anticompetitive effects. Still, the antitrust...more
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
China’s Anti-Monopoly Law: No Longer Just Merger Control?
Until this year, China's enforcement activities in the field of antitrust, particularly as these have affected foreign companies, had been mainly focused on...more
Antitrust challenges to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements in drug patent suits are allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc....more
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation....more
The Supreme Court today decided FTC v. Actavis, Inc. and held, in a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Breyer, that so-called reverse-payment patent settlements are subject to full antitrust Rule of Reason analysis....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
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion today in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that are...more
The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (“Board”) failed to convince the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the Board’s successful effort to “expel non-dentist providers from the North...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
Holding in Phoebe Putney case narrowly construes state-action exemption to antitrust laws.
On February 19, in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a...more
In one of the most closely watched healthcare antitrust cases in years, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the FTC merger challenge to a Georgia hospital merger, Phoebe Putney Health System’s acquisition of Palmyra...more
In FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Supreme Court No. 12-416), the FTC unsurprisingly filed a merits brief this month again arguing that pay-for-delay (or “reverse payment”) patent settlements are presumptively...more
Back to Top