News & Analysis as of

Contractual Duty to Deal Does Not Equal Antitrust Duty to Deal

Addressing for the first time whether a patent holder under a contractual duty to deal is also subject to an antitrust duty to deal, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of a putative antitrust...more

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

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

Federal Circuit Expands Doctrine of Double Patenting

Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) owns United States Patent No. 5,763,483 and United States Patent No. 5,952,375. The patents feature common inventors and disclose similar material in the field of anti-viral compounds. Natco...more

Federal Circuit Find Fractures in Roche Boniva Patents

In Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that two Roche Boniva patents are invalid as obvious. The conclusion of obviousness is not particularly remarkable...more

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (2013)

The old adage "Bad cases make bad law" is invoked when the facts of a case lead a court to rule in favor of the particular entities before it rather than applying the law consistently. (Although anyone familiar with recent...more

Litigation Alert: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh In on Reverse Payment Deals

On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,1 which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This case addresses a type of patent litigation settlement...more

Supreme Court Oral Argument in FTC v. Actavis

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis (the caption for what was Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the 11th Circuit opinion below) last Monday, with Deputy...more

Case Brief: Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals

[Ed. The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. While Patent Docs will provide analysis regarding the oral argument in a subsequent post, we provide the following...more

Senators Introduce Another Bill to Ban Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

Last week, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was joined by Senators David Vitter (R-LA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in introducing S. 204, the "Fair and Immediate Release of Generic Drugs...more

WLF Submits Comments on Abbott's Citizen Petition on Biosimilars

Last April, Abbott Laboratories filed a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, asking the agency to refrain from accepting biosimilar applications under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act...more

Supreme Court Declines Opportunity to Clarify Scope of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2013, denied GlaxoSmithKline’s petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe-harbor provision at 35 USC 271(e)(1) in Classen...more

Supreme Court to Hear AndroGel Reverse Payment Case

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to address whether and when “reverse payment” agreements made to settle ANDA litigation violate antitrust laws....more

12 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1