Lessons from the latest Commission decision on agreements affecting generic entry:
- The European Commission’s crack down on so-called “reverse payment” agreements continues.
- In the EU these agreements may...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Breyer, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of an FTC complaint under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission...more
It is a well-established and universally accepted principle of competition law that a payment by one competitor to another competitor not to enter a market is anticompetitive, and in Australia since 2010 a criminal offence....more
June 18, 2013 – The Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision yesterday in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., holding pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust review, but are not presumptively unlawful. The decision was authored...more
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis (the caption for what was Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the 11th Circuit opinion below) last Monday, with Deputy...more
In This Issue:
- A Modern Look at the Nine ‘No-Nos’ of Patent Licensing Under U.S. Antitrust Law: The First Four ‘No-Nos’
- Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Watson Reverse Payment Settlement Case
- 7th Circuit...more
Agencies promise close scrutiny of hospital mergers, reverse payment settlements, and REMS abuses.
During a roundtable discussion featuring federal and state enforcers at the American Bar Association Section of...more
Back to Top