Podcast — Drug Pricing: How Are Payers Responding to the IRA?
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 203: Manufacturing Specialty Drugs for Rare Diseases in North Carolina with Paul Testa of Kyowa Kirin
The DEA Is Knocking at Your Door . . . Are You Prepared? – Diagnosing Health Care
The Latest on Healthcare Enforcement
340B Drug Pricing Program Compliance
Podcast: The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone - Diagnosing Health Care
[Podcast] Food for Thought and Thoughts on Food: What to Expect in 2023
Podcast: Post-Dobbs Access to Reproductive Health Care and Abortion-Inducing Drugs - Diagnosing Health Care
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 116: Michael Carlin, Manager, Engage HCP by TrialCard
Hospice Audit Series: Beyond Part D, OIG Scrutinizes the Hospice Industry to the Tune of $6.6 Billion
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New Prescription Drug and Health Coverage Reporting Requirements
I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - Fee Waivers for Small Businesses: Who Qualifies for the Small Business User Fee Waiver for Drugs and Biologics and How to Apply
I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - 2020 Year in Review on FDA’s Enforcement of Rx Drug Promotions & Trends
Part Two: The MFN Drug Pricing Rule and the Rebate Rule: Where Do We Go From Here?
Part One: Two new Medicare Drug Pricing Rules in One Day: What are the MFN and the Rebate Drug Pricing Rules?
On the Ballot 2020: Health Care Policy Outlook - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Key Considerations for Reshoring U.S. Drug Manufacturing
I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - Quality Agreements for FDA-Regulated Products: Looking Under the Hood
Product Launching in the Era of COVID-19 - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: FDA Regulatory and Patent Implications of the Transition Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
On December 3, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its annual report on pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the FTC under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003...more
The European Court of Justice's ruling in Paroxetine, handed down in record time just before Brexit, confirms the narrow interpretation of restrictions by object given in other recent cases. It also clarified certain issues...more
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
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
Five years after the U.S. Supreme Court found in FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. 136 (2013), that large and unjustified payments from a brand pharmaceutical manufacturer to prevent generic entry can provide a basis for an antitrust...more
This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more
One of the least disputed elements of class certification is Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity, and so there is relatively little analysis from the courts about it. Last month, however, a divided panel of the Third Circuit provided a...more
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
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis in 2013, courts (predominantly district courts) have grappled with the scope of the decision. It was evident that the presence of a large cash payment from the...more
In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more
“Reverse Payment” Settlements Face Greater Antitrust Scrutiny Following U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in FTC v. Actavis: Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. - Resolving a split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals, the...more
Earlier this month, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) held a press conference to announce the release of a study of the effects of reverse settlement payment agreements in ANDA litigation. ...more
Patent rights and antitrust law contain inherently antagonistic policies: While antitrust law is aimed at preventing monopolies and promoting competition, patent law explicitly rewards inventors with a time-limited right to...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
Key Points: - Patent settlements must be analyzed under the rule of reason, requiring a full analysis of the net competitive effects - Payments to an alleged infringer may be permissible if justified by, for...more
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
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
On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis. The 5-3 decision, however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was...more
In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that...more
SUMMARY OF DECISION - In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ____ (Slip Op. June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the underlying antitrust merits of the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running...more