News & Analysis as of

Pay-For-Delay Patents

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

No Antitrust Violations for Creating and Enforcing Humira Patent Thicket

Last month, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed an antitrust complaint brought by indirect purchasers of AbbVie’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug,...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

Haug Partners LLP

FDA And FTC To Scrutinize Biologics Competition

Haug Partners LLP on

On February 3, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint statement announcing their plans to collaborate in promoting competitive biological product markets and...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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

The EU General Court’s Ruling on Pay for Delay - Why Patent Settlement Agreements May Violate EU Antitrust Laws

The EU General Court (“Court”) reduced the fines imposed on Servier SAS and its subsidiaries (“Servier”) from a total of €428 million to €315 million (see press release no. 194/18), thereby partially annulling a European...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

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

BPLA Panel with Judge Young on Reverse Payments after Actavis

On October 26, the Boston Patent Law Association will host a panel featuring Judge William Young to discuss the legal landscape following the Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion in Actavis v. FTC...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Lidoderm Plaintiffs Survive Class Certification in Pay-for-Delay Suit

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US District Court for the Northern District of California certified classes of direct purchasers and end-payers in a pay-for-delay multidistrict litigation involving Lidoderm. In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, Case No....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Third Circuit Declines to Send Pay-for-Delay Litigation to Federal Circuit

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing questions of federal jurisdiction, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that it, and not the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, had jurisdiction over two consolidated appeals arising from...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - March 2017 Volume 3, Number 1

McDermott Will & Emery on

Speculative Evidence of Irreparable Harm Sinks Bayer's Request for Permanent Injunction - Bayer Pharma AG, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. December 28, 2016) - Applying the eBay factors to Plaintiff...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Nexium Case Extends Actavis Ruling

Addressing a pay-for-delay and pharmaceutical-settlement antitrust jury trial for the first time since the 2012 Supreme Court of the United States decision in FTC v. Actavis (IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 7), the US Court of...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

McDermott Will & Emery

AbbVie Documents Not Protected by Privilege in FTC Sham Litigation Suit - Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie, Inc., (E.D. Penn....

McDermott Will & Emery on

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered AbbVie, Inc. and Besins Healthcare to produce unredacted documents to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), because the documents were relevant to the...more

62 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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