Pay-For-Delay

News & Analysis as of

Status of Pay-for-Delay Cases Nearly Two Years After Actavis – “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

Nearly two years ago the Supreme Court issued its opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), holding that a reverse payment made by a brand manufacturer to a generic manufacturer to resolve pending patent litigation...more

California Supreme Court Scrutinizes Reverse Payment ANDA Settlements

In In Re Cipro Cases I & II, the California Supreme Court laid out a four-part rule of reason analysis for evaluating ANDA settlements that involve a reverse payment to the generic challenger (also referred to as “pay for...more

California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay...

On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro holds that reverse payment settlements can be challenged under...more

Following Actavis, California Supreme Court Crafts “Structured Rule of Reason” Test for Evaluating Pay-for-Delay Settlements

Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616 (Cal. May 7, 2015), holding that reverse payment, or “pay-for-delay,” settlements can be challenged as unreasonable restraints on...more

CA Supreme Court Issues First Decision Extending FTC v. Actavis to State Antitrust Litigation

The California Supreme Court issued a decision today in the Cipro antitrust cases, concluding that the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis applies to alleged “pay-for-delay” pharmaceutical patent...more

In re: Nexium Plaintiffs Seek a Permanent Injunction

As we reported earlier, the jury in In re: Nexium found that AstraZeneca had violated the antitrust laws by acting to keep generics off the market but that no generic would have been introduced earlier in the market even...more

In re: Nexium Plaintiffs Seek New Trial

As reported previously, the first post-Actavis jury verdict in a “reverse payment” antitrust case handed a win to the defendants. Now, plaintiffs in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation have moved for a new...more

FTC Issues Report on ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Settlement Volume for FY 2013

The Federal Trade Commission staff recently issued a report detailing the number of “potential pay-for-delay settlements” that took place in fiscal year 2013. The FTC is a staunch opponent of so-called “pay-for-delay”—also...more

Pay-For-Delay In 2014: Courts Fill In The Actavis Gaps

A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. and affirmed that antitrust principles apply to reverse payment settlement agreements — those in which a brand-name drug...more

The FTC gets activist post-Actavis

In 2013, the FTC left its mark on the pharmaceutical industry when the Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that settlement agreements for patent infringement suits between branded and generic drug companies are not immune...more

Lupin Appeals Fine Imposed by European Commission in “Pay-For-Delay” Crackdown

In July of this year, the European Commission imposed fines on French pharmaceutical company Servier and five generic drug makers, including Lupin Ltd., totaling €427.7 million. The fines were the result of a five-year...more

Development in Pharma Patent Settlement Lawsuit

In one of the first tests of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. addressing the antitrust treatment of pharmaceutical patent settlements, a recent jury on Dec. 5, 2014, returned a...more

First Post-Actavis Jury Verdict Goes to Defendants on Causation Question

After six weeks of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury has returned its verdict in favor of the defendants in In re: Nexium. This trial began as a challenge to the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the settlements...more

In re: Nexium: Judge Young Denies Defendants’ Motions for a Directed Verdict

Last week, the Nexium district court ruled on defendants’ motions seeking judgment as a matter of law. As we previously reported in several earlier posts, In re: Nexium is the first pay-for-delay case to go to trial since...more

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

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

64 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×