Hatch-Waxman Supreme Court of the United States Patents

News & Analysis as of

Business Litigation Report - September 2015

Alleging Fraud in a Financial Crisis: The Second Circuit Articulates a Less Stringent Pleading Standard for Loss Causation: Loss causation has emerged as a central obstacle to post-financial-crisis fraud cases. The loss...more

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

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

ANDA Update - July 2015

Supreme Court Holds Good Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Induced Infringement - Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Supr. Ct. May 26, 2015): Pharmaceutical patents commonly include...more

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10229 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Wallach presiding; Opinion by Moore,...more

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

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

Lessons in Personal Jurisdiction for BPCIA Litigants after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler

An emerging issue in Hatch-Waxman litigation – and potentially under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) – is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.746 (2014), on...more

Will Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Change Patent Litigation?

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more

Practice Considerations Post Teva v. Sandoz

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. 574 U.S. __ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that underlying factual issues resolved while formally construing a disputed patent claim term at the...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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court Rules That “Pay for Delay” Generic Drug Patent Settlements Are Not Shielded From Antitrust Liability

The Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws may forbid patent settlements that delay the market entry of generic drugs in return for large payments from manufacturers of competing branded drugs....more

Reverse-Payment Patent Settlements Subject to Antitrust Analysis

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

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Rules on “Reverse Payment” Settlements in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.

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

Supreme Court Chooses Middle Ground in Assessing Reverse Payment Settlements

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

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on "Pay for Delay" Agreements

On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers....more

Par/Paddock Answers FTC Before Supreme Court

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

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 Grants Cert in Watson Pay-For-Delay Case

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve the circuit split on the treatment of so-called “pay for delay” Hatch-Waxman Act patent...more

24 Results
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.