News & Analysis as of

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

For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents

On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline. The trio of decisions is significant because...more

PTAB Update -- Hatch-Waxman-Watch Edition

The pharmaceutical industry has been closing watching the proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") to see if inter partes review ("IPR") will be a viable option for generic drug companies seeking...more

Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The issue here concerns whether the owner of a pharmaceutical patent may simultaneously assert a claim for infringement under § 271(e)(2), and a claim pursuant to the Declaratory...more

Depomed, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Depomed sued Actavis for infringing seven patents related to a dosage form capable of being retained in the stomach, allowing for the delayed-release of gabapentin in the small...more

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement of claims 1, 16, 36, and 37 of each of the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit all claim pharmaceutical compositions containing propofol...more

Hospira, Inc. v. Burwell

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Precedex is commonly used as a sedative. Specifically, the FDA has approved Precedex for two uses: (i) sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during...more

What’s In a Name? The Value of Pharmaceutical & Biologic Branding

September 2014 marks 30 years since the Hatch-Waxman Amendments (Hatch-Waxman) to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) introduced generics as we know them. Hatch- Waxman strove to offer consumers the benefits of “rapid...more

Emerging Impact of Inter Partes Review on Hatch Waxman Litigation – A Primer

Hatch-Waxman Litigation in a Nutshell - Hatch-Waxman litigation refers to pharmaceutical patent litigation between a brand drug manufacturer and a generic drug manufacturer under the Hatch-Waxman Act (“Act”). The Act...more

Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. FDA (N.D.W.V.)

Mylan filed a complaint on April 25, 2014, challenging a letter decision by the FDA, addressing the marketing exclusivity eligibility of celecoxib Abbreviated New Drug Application applicants. Mylan then filed a motion for...more

Jumping Into The Actavis Briar Patch — Insight Into How Courts May Structure Reverse Payment Antitrust Proceedings And The...

In This Issue: - INTRODUCTION - WHAT ARE REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? ..The Basic Framework of Hatch-Waxman Litigation ..The Federal Trade Commission’s View of Reverse Payment Settlements and Its...more

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

When does a prior art disclosure of a concentration range of a medicament render obvious the use of a species that falls within that range, when that same use was also known in the prior art? After all, common sense should...more

FTC Workshop to Revisit Competition Issues Regarding Follow-On Biologics

Five years ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) waded into the debate regarding the benefits and potential competition issues posed by the introduction of "follow-on biologics." Now, some three years after Congress...more

Supreme Court: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that addressed a “reverse payment” settlement agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company (plaintiff patent holder) and multiple generic drug companies...more

Supreme Court Applies Rule of Reason in Antitrust Challenges to Reverse-Payment Patent Settlements

One of the most controversial antitrust issues for the pharmaceutical industry during the last decade has been the treatment of patent settlements in which a patent-holding branded manufacturer made payments to its generic...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

Reverse Payment Settlements Now Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny, But Lower Courts Left to Fill in the Blanks

Earlier this week in FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2013), the Supreme Court handed down its long-anticipated ruling on “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” agreements, holding that these agreements—while not...more

Reverse-Payment Patent Settlements Subject to Antitrust Analysis

The Supreme Court today decided FTC v. Actavis, Inc. and held, in a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Breyer, that so-called reverse-payment patent settlements are subject to full antitrust Rule of Reason analysis....more

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Rules on “Reverse Payment” Settlements in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more

Supreme Court Chooses Middle Ground in Assessing Reverse Payment Settlements

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion today in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that are...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law - Winter 2013 - Volume 11, Issue 1

In This Issue: Federal Courts Debate Safe Harbor Exemption for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) Following Merck v. Integra; If I Prioritize Examination of My Application, Should the Patent Office?;...more

Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Whether ANDA litigation has had a positive or negative impact on generic drug availability is an open question, in view of several recent reports looking at the effects such litigation has had on both branded and generic...more

The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation

In FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Supreme Court No. 12-416), the FTC unsurprisingly filed a merits brief this month again arguing that pay-for-delay (or “reverse payment”) patent settlements are presumptively...more

Supreme Court Declines Opportunity to Clarify Scope of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2013, denied GlaxoSmithKline’s petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe-harbor provision at 35 USC 271(e)(1) in Classen...more

29 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2