Pay-For-Delay

News & Analysis as of

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

Supreme Court Holds That Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...more

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. – Supreme Court Holds Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements to be Analyzed under...

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. 570 U.S. __ (2013), Slip Op....more

“Reverse Payment” Settlements Subject to Greater Antitrust Scrutiny: Implications of Supreme Court FTC v. Actavis Ruling

By rejecting the “scope of the patent” test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” the Supreme Court of the United States subjects such settlements to greater antitrust...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

Drug Company Patent Settlements Subject To Rule Of Reason Antitrust Scrutiny

This week, the Supreme Court announced that “reverse payment” settlements of patent litigation between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies are, when challenged in a subsequent antitrust case, to be judged under the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That “Reverse Payment” Patent Litigation Settlements Are Not Immune from Antitrust Review

In a significant ruling involving both intellectual property rights and competition policy, the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–3 decision issued on June 17 that patent litigation settlements involving “reverse...more

46 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2