News & Analysis as of

FTC v Actavis Patent Infringement

McDermott Will & Emery

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Large and Unjustified: Second Circuit Clarifies Pleading Requirements in Reverse Payments Cases

On May 13—and more than ten years after Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on reverse payment settlements—the Second Circuit for the first time weighed in on whether (and how) antitrust...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Clarity May Be Around the Corner for Antitrust Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements

In the ten years since the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis that reverse payment settlements—or settlements where a patent holder pays an accused patent infringer cash or other consideration to end...more

Haug Partners LLP

California, Rest In Peace: Pharmaceutical Companies, Keep Your Settlement Discussions Out of California

Haug Partners LLP on

For nearly a decade, the Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis decision has guided pharmaceutical litigators and advisors exploring the antitrust risks inherent in settling pharmaceutical patent lawsuits, especially when such...more

WilmerHale

Unprecedented State Law on Pharmaceutical “Reverse Payments” Goes Into Effect

WilmerHale on

A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Quo Vadis FTC: What Does the Commission's Complaint Against Endo Pharmaceuticals and Others Say About the Future of Post-Actavis...

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

BakerHostetler

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

BakerHostetler on

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more

BakerHostetler

FTC’s Amicus Brief in Wellbutrin XL Appeal Highlights Significance for Interpretation of Actavis

BakerHostetler on

The FTC has recently weighed in again on the evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The agency submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit in the appeal of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

The Use of Expert Opinions in ‘Reverse-Payment’ Settlement Cases Under Actavis - King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v....

McDermott Will & Emery on

Applying its previous rulings in related litigation and interpreting FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 756 (2013), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was tasked with determining whether to preclude expert...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

1st Circuit Joins 3rd Circuit: Non-Cash Reverse Payments Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Courts continue to evaluate the degree to which “reverse payments” are permitted post-Actavis. In the latest of these decisions, issued on February 22, 2016, the First Circuit held that non-cash payments may run afoul of the...more

Troutman Pepper

FTC Report Tallies Hatch-Waxman Settlements in First Full Year After Actavis

Troutman Pepper on

On January 13, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) released an overview of the pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the Commission in Fiscal Year 2014 (October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014). The...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Better Early than Never: SDNY Dismisses Lawsuit over Patent Settlement where Generics were Granted Early-Entry Licenses with...

On September 22, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and three generic drug manufacturers based on settlements they had reached regarding a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Circuit Lifts Injunction Against Sandoz

Sandoz successfully (at least for now) has overcome conventional wisdom, the plain language of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) (or, at least those provisions regarding patent litigation) and Amgen...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Third Circuit Extends Actavis to Reverse Settlement Agreements Involving Non-Cash Consideration - King Drug Company of Florence,...

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

K&L Gates LLP

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

K&L Gates LLP on

In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more

BakerHostetler

Patent Defeats Antitrust in Latest Test at Supreme Court

BakerHostetler on

In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

First Federal Appellate Court Holds a NonCash Reverse Payment Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny: Is the Third Circuit's Decision in...

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

California Supreme Court Details Antitrust Analysis of "Reverse Payment" Patent Settlements

Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court's application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called "reverse payment"...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Plausibly Alleging Non-monetary Settlements as Reverse Payments After Actavis

In In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation, No. 12 Civ. 2389 (D.N.J.), U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan has confirmed his prior ruling that under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly, Iqbal, and FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133...more

Zelle  LLP

Pay-For-Delay In 2014: Courts Fill In The Actavis Gaps

Zelle LLP on

A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. and affirmed that antitrust principles apply to reverse payment settlement agreements — those in which a brand-name drug...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Development in Pharma Patent Settlement Lawsuit

In one of the first tests of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. addressing the antitrust treatment of pharmaceutical patent settlements, a recent jury on Dec. 5, 2014, returned a...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

First Post-Actavis Jury Verdict Goes to Defendants on Causation Question

After six weeks of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury has returned its verdict in favor of the defendants in In re: Nexium. This trial began as a challenge to the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the settlements...more

Dickinson Wright

Health Insurer Antitrust Claim Against Drug Company Remanded to State Court

Dickinson Wright on

Over the last several years, several health insurers have brought antitrust claims against drug companies, contending that they were overcharged for drugs as a result of agreements reached by the drug companies in the...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Jumping Into The Actavis Briar Patch — Insight Into How Courts May Structure Reverse Payment Antitrust Proceedings And The...

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide