News & Analysis as of

Pay-For-Delay Patents Generic Drugs

McDermott Will & Emery

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more

A&O Shearman

European Commission sanctions first ever pharmaceuticals cartel and scores victory in pay-for-delay appeal

A&O Shearman on

The European Commission (EC) has fined five pharmaceutical companies a total of EUR13.4 million for participating in a cartel concerning N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (SNBB) – an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API)...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Jury Finds Gilead and Teva Did Not Engage in an Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay Scheme for HIV Drugs

On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

[Webinar] Health Care Antitrust Under President Biden 2.0 - Almost One Year In: What Have We Learned About The Democrats’ Approach...

Robins Kaplan LLP on

In March 2021, our experienced intellectual property, antitrust, and health care litigation lawyers shared some predictions on antitrust policy and enforcement in the health care sector. In “Health Care Antitrust under...more

A&O Shearman

Beyond “pay-for-delay” – the EU-Commission’s investigation into patent filing practices and communication measures

A&O Shearman on

On 4 March 2021, the European Commission (Commission) opened a formal investigation into alleged anti-competitive conduct by the pharmaceutical company Teva. The Commission suspects Teva of having deployed a strategy with the...more

A&O Shearman

Patent settlements and competition law – guidance from Europe’s top court

A&O Shearman on

On 25 March 2021, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled for the second time on a “pay-for-delay” settlement. These are settlements of a patent dispute that involve payments or other value transfers from the originator...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

ANDA litigation, pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, has become more complicated over the years since enactment of the statute in 1984, with more patents being asserted and more parties participating over the opportunity to...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Investment in Possible Future Generic Marketing Excludes Legitimate Basis for Pharma Settlement, Suggests EU Advocate General

In her opinion issued on June 4, 2020, Advocate General (AG) Juliane Kokott recommended that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismiss in its entirety the appeal by Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Ltd against the General Court’s...more

Hogan Lovells

The Court of Justice of the European Union provides clarifications on the assessment under competition law of pay-for-delay deals...

Hogan Lovells on

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its decision on a request for preliminary ruling submitted by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in a case concerning the long-standing...more

WilmerHale

Unprecedented State Law on Pharmaceutical “Reverse Payments” Goes Into Effect

WilmerHale on

A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more

Dechert LLP

The Servier Judgment: A Breath of Fresh Air for Pharmaceutical Companies?

Dechert LLP on

On 12 December 2018, the General Court (“Court”) partially annulled the European Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 in the Servier case and consequently reduced Servier’s fine by more than 30%, from €330.99 million to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

EU Court Confirms European Commission’s Decision on Pay-for-Delay Agreements

McDermott Will & Emery on

On 8 September 2016, the General Court of the European Union upheld the European Commission’s decision in which the antitrust regulator imposed fines of approximately EUR 150 million on Lundbeck and a number of generic...more

Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity

Carlton Fields on

The Third Circuit recently vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into agreements...more

McDermott Will & Emery

General Court of the EU Confirms Fines Imposed on Lundbeck and Generic Drug Manufacturers for Entering into Patent Settlements

McDermott Will & Emery on

On 8 September 2016, the General Court of the EU (GCEU) handed down five judgments upholding a decision by the Commission of 19 June 2013 imposing fines on Lundbeck, an originator company, and Merck (the parent company of...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

District Court Narrowly Defines the Relevant Market in Post-Actavis Pay-For-Delay Suit

On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more

Perkins Coie

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

Perkins Coie on

Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more

McGuireWoods LLP

More on Patent Settlements Including Litigation at the European Courts

McGuireWoods LLP on

Last week I posted on the European Commission’s (EC) latest report into patent settlement agreements between originator and generic companies in the European Union (EU). The EC says each time it produces these reports that...more

K&L Gates LLP

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Northern District of California Upholds Assignment of Antitrust Claims to Indirect Purchasers

Portions of a reverse payment suit against Endo Pharmaceuticals and others were recently dismissed by Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California. The case was brought by plaintiffs who allege that a...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Teva Agrees to Pay $1.2 Billion in FTC’s Pay-For-Delay Suit Against Cephalon

Recently, the FTC announced that it reached a settlement in its pay-for-delay lawsuit, FTC v. Cephalon Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.,...more

BakerHostetler

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

BakerHostetler on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

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

41 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide