Pay-For-Delay Pharmaceutical Industry

News & Analysis as of

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

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

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

FTC Maintains Aggressive Stance Against Pay-for-Delay Deals

A recent complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicates that the agency is continuing its aggressive pursuit of agreements between drug manufacturers that delay the entry of generic pharmaceuticals into the...more

The right policy prescription for pharmaceutical patents? The Australian Productivity Commission proposes a new formula

As mentioned in our earlier article Australia’s Productivity Commission has released a draft report (Report) regarding intellectual property (IP) in Australia. The Report covers various IP rights and provides the Commission’s...more

Alert: FTC Challenges "No-AG" Agreement as Illegal Reverse Payment

On March 30 the US Federal Trade Commission filed suit in federal court alleging that settlements of patent litigation in the pharmaceutical industry in which a pioneer firm agrees not to market an "authorized generic"...more

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more

The First Circuit Agrees that Non-Cash Reverse Payments Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny. Does the Loestrin Decision Point to...

Recently, the First Circuit became the second federal appellate court interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. to hold that non-cash "reverse payments" between pioneer and generic...more

European Competition Law Newsletter – March 2016

On 16 February 2016, the European Commission (EC) took the next step in its antitrust investigation into the use of price increase letters by 15 container liner shipping companies (carriers). The concern identified by the...more

FTC Issues Report on ANDA Settlement Agreements

In January, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on the terms of settlement agreements between branded and generic drug companies in ANDA litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act, according to the provisions of the...more

1st Circuit Joins 3rd Circuit: Non-Cash Reverse Payments Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Courts continue to evaluate the degree to which “reverse payments” are permitted post-Actavis. In the latest of these decisions, issued on February 22, 2016, the First Circuit held that non-cash payments may run afoul of the...more

Large ‘pay for delay’ fine imposed by CMA

On the 12th of February 2016, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fined GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the successor companies to Alpharma Limited around £45m in total for breaches of Chapter I of the Competition Act...more

Blog: Heath Provisions in President’s Budget Take Aim at Drug Prices and Opioid Abuse

Today, the President sent Congress the $4 trillion Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal – his last while in office. While the Budget on the whole is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Congress, there are provisions...more

FDA Regulatory and Compliance Monthly Recap — January 2016

OPDP enforcement reaches record low in 2015 as drugmakers face uncertainty in digital marketing - Enforcement by the OPDP has fallen notably since 2010. The decline has been attributed, in part, to the agency's slow...more

More on Patent Settlements Including Litigation at the European Courts

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

Washington Healthcare Update

This Week: House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Legislation to Strengthen Medicaid Program Integrity and Fraud Controls... Bipartisan Senate Bill Introduced to Stop Anti-Competitive “Pay-For-Delay”...more

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

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

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

Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Australia: Overview

Conditions and legislation Australian patent law is governed by the Patents act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act). The Patents Act provides for the grant of two main types of patents in Australia: - Standard, which is...more

Federal Trade Commission Continues March “to Set a Standard for the Industry” with Cephalon Settlement

On May 28, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals, which acquired Cephalon in 2012, over reverse payment for its narcolepsy drug, Provigil. The...more

FTC’s $1.2 Billion Disgorgement Settlement With Cephalon: Heightened Scrutiny of Hatch-Waxman Settlements

On May 28, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. (now owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.), which alleged that Cephalon had made “reverse...more

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

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

57 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

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

Already signed up? Log in here

*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. Or, sign up using your email address.
×