Hatch-Waxman

News & Analysis as of

Hospira, Inc. v. Burwell

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Precedex is commonly used as a sedative. Specifically, the FDA has approved Precedex for two uses: (i) sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during...more

Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Apotex appealed the district court’s finding that the ’556 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ’556 patent describes a method for making moexipril tablets used...more

Silence of ANDA with Respect to a Claim Limitation Does Not Constitute Infringement

Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc. - In Hatch-Waxman litigation that involved Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) that were silent as to certain claimed limitations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

What’s In a Name? The Value of Pharmaceutical & Biologic Branding

September 2014 marks 30 years since the Hatch-Waxman Amendments (Hatch-Waxman) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) introduced generics as we know them. Hatch- Waxman strove to offer consumers the benefits of “rapid...more

Emerging Impact of Inter Partes Review on Hatch Waxman Litigation – A Primer

Hatch-Waxman Litigation in a Nutshell - Hatch-Waxman litigation refers to pharmaceutical patent litigation between a brand drug manufacturer and a generic drug manufacturer under the Hatch-Waxman Act (“Act”). The Act...more

Sham Hatch-Waxman Infringement Suits And FDA Citizen Petitions; A Potential For New Liability For Innovators?

Under what is commonly known as “Noerr-Pennington immunity,” persons exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress are generally immune from antitrust liability, even though their actions may...more

Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. FDA (N.D.W.V.)

Mylan filed a complaint on April 25, 2014, challenging a letter decision by the FDA, addressing the marketing exclusivity eligibility of celecoxib Abbreviated New Drug Application applicants. Mylan then filed a motion for...more

After Actavis: Crafting Pharmaceutical Settlements that Avoid Antitrust Scrutiny

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Actavis cleared the way for more antitrust challenges to settlements between generic and branded pharmaceutical companies resolving Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. As a result,...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

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

House Passes Patent Reform Legislation

The U.S. Congress continues to focus on patent reform legislation with House passage of the Innovation Act, a bill primarily addressing the conduct of patent litigation. While much attention has been paid to litigation...more

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

When does a prior art disclosure of a concentration range of a medicament render obvious the use of a species that falls within that range, when that same use was also known in the prior art? After all, common sense should...more

FTC Workshop to Revisit Competition Issues Regarding Follow-On Biologics

Five years ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) waded into the debate regarding the benefits and potential competition issues posed by the introduction of "follow-on biologics." Now, some three years after Congress...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

Applying the Supreme Court’s Decision in Actavis: Consideration Value Comparisons by Courts Approving Reverse Payment Settlements

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that “reverse payment” pharma patent settlements within the scope of the patent may (or may not) violate the Sherman Act.1 The majority opinion in Actavis explained that Hatch-Waxman...more

Hatch-Waxman Watch: Safe Harbor Edition

Last week, two district courts dispensed with lawsuits based on the protections afforded by the safe harbor provision of the Hatch-Waxman statute. Both of the cases relied heavily on the Federal Circuit case Momenta Pharm....more

Reverse Payment Agreements Under Hatch-Waxman

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. No. 12-416. The question presented in the writ of certiorari concerned whether reverse payment agreements are per se...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

Reverse Payment Schemes Risk Antitrust Liability: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Bright Line Test

A divided Supreme Court recently held in an opinion by Justice Breyer that “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between patent holders and potential competitors are not immune from scrutiny under antitrust laws....more

Supreme Court: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

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

Supreme Court Rules That Pay-For-Delay Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenges

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

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

FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?

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

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

Supreme Court Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

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

46 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2