Pay-For-Delay

News & Analysis as of

In re: Nexium: Ranbaxy’s Motion for a Mistrial to Be Argued Today

Today, the Nexium district court will hear arguments on the Ranbaxy defendants’ motion for a mistrial. As we have previously reported, In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since the Supreme Court’s...more

What’s Next for In re: Nexium: Defendants’ Motions for Directed Verdicts Likely to Turn on Sufficiency of Expert Testimony

As we previously reported, the In re: Nexium trial is the first pay-for-delay trial in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis decision. But if the Nexium defendants have it their way, plaintiffs’...more

Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Settles on Eve of Trial – Agrees to Cooperate with Plaintiffs

Much has happened since our last post on the Nexium “pay for delay” class action lawsuit. Jury selection began in the District of Massachusetts on Monday, October 20, 2014. The day prior, one of the generic drug makers, Dr....more

A New Suit Alleges “Product Hopping” Theory

Previously, we discussed a recent lawsuit that alleged “product hopping” by a brand pharmaceutical manufacturer as part of a broader pay-for-delay claim. On Monday, the New York Attorney General filed a suit in the U.S....more

India Enters "Pay-for-Delay" Fray: CCI Investigating Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements

India's competition authority, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has begun scrutinizing and investigating pharmaceutical patent settlement agreements between brand and generic firms for potential anticompetitive...more

New IP Enforcement Policy in the EU

Given that strategic importance of IP-sensitive industries for the EU economy, the European Commission (Commission) has introduced a new initiative with a view to strengthen the protection of EU-based IP rights by working...more

California Supreme Court to Determine Whether "Delay For Pay" Settlements in Patent Disputes Violate the Antitrust Provisions of...

Historically, contending parties have settled patent infringement cases by agreeing that the allegedly infringing party will not manufacture the product at issue during the term of the patentee's existing patent in return for...more

FTC Continues Aggressive Posture On Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements With Reference To Disgorgement

In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more

European Union: Assessment Of IP Licensing Agreements Under EU Competition Law*

In recent years there has been a remarkable expansion of antitrust enforcement in the area of intellectual property (IP). This trend is illustrated by an increasing willingness of the European Commission (the Commission) and...more

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 1

In this Issue: - New Developments - U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Patent Agreements That Postpone the Sale of Generic Drugs Violate Antitrust Laws - Direct Purchasers Have Standing to Bring Antitrust...more

Pay-for-delay to Stay FTC’s Top Priority

In a recent interview, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Competition chairwoman Deborah Feinstein announced that targeting pay-for-delay arrangements by pharmaceutical companies would continue as a top priority for the...more

The Antitrust Review Of The Americas 2013: US: Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Antitrust Law

United States antitrust laws seek to encourage free and open competition by preventing exclusionary conduct that threatens the competitive process. Intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, by contrast, are designed to...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

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

"Business Cases in the US Supreme Court"

The U.S. Supreme Court recently closed its 2012 term with its usual headline-grabbing flurry of June decisions. Several of those decisions, as well as many more that received less publicity, will affect business interests. In...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2013

In This Issue: *News from the Bench - Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling on Gene Patentability: Natural DNA “No”/ cDNA “Yes” - CAFC Reverses Denial of Permanent Injunction Based on Perceived Future...more

The European Commission's first pay-for-delay anti-trust infringement decision

In June 2013, two important decisions regarding 'pay-for-delay' arrangements in the pharmaceuticals industry were made in the EU and US. Generally speaking, 'pay-for-delay' or 'reverse-payment settlements' involve a type of...more

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Q&A: Implications for Pharmaceutical Companies

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may bring antitrust suits against so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, under which pioneer and generic...more

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 2

In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more

Health Care Reform Implementation Update - June 27, 2013

The countdown is on now. Less than 100 days until the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) main provisions go into effect, and Organizing for Action and Enroll America kicked outreach efforts to the uninsured into high gear last week....more

Supreme Court Subjects Reverse Payment Settlements to Antitrust Review

In a recent opinion with powerful implications for drug manufacturers, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in FTC v. Actavis that reverse payment settlement agreements can violate the antitrust laws despite the antitrust immunity...more

Supreme Court Votes Pro-Arbitration Once Again and Upholds Class Arbitration Waiver

Lest there be any lingering confusion, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again reminded us that arbitration agreements are to be “rigorously enforced.”...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

High Court Finds Antitrust Scrutiny Applies to Pay-for-Delay Settlements

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust challenge to a reverse payment settlement agreement between drug manufacturers, otherwise known as a “pay-for-delay”...more

51 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3