News & Analysis as of

API Manufacturers Are Not Proper Defendants In Hatch-Waxman Actions

A district court judge in New Jersey recently granted an API supplier’s motion to dismiss claims filed against the supplier in an ANDA suit, raising questions about whether an API supplier belongs as a defendant in these...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

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

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

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 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

Reverse Payment Settlements Now Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny, But Lower Courts Left to Fill in the Blanks

Earlier this week in FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2013), the Supreme Court handed down its long-anticipated ruling on “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” agreements, holding that these agreements—while not...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

Federal Circuit Upholds One Claim Covering Combigan

In Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court in part, finding that Allergan’s composition claims and most of its method claims are invalid as obvious, but upholding one method claim...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

In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2013)

On the first day of February, the Federal Circuit rejected Impax's efforts to get out from under a preliminary injunction in a case captioned In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation. ...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

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law - Winter 2013 - Volume 11, Issue 1

In This Issue: Federal Courts Debate Safe Harbor Exemption for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) Following Merck v. Integra; If I Prioritize Examination of My Application, Should the Patent Office?;...more

Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Whether ANDA litigation has had a positive or negative impact on generic drug availability is an open question, in view of several recent reports looking at the effects such litigation has had on both branded and generic...more

The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation

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

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

In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Late last year, in AstraZeneca v. Aurobindo (In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation), the Federal Circuit affirmed that a reissue patent covering the active ingredient of Crestor® was valid, enforceable, and infringed...more

30 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2