Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

News & Analysis as of

FTC Continues Aggressive Posture On Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements With Reference To Disgorgement

In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more

District of New Jersey Finds Settlement Without Reverse Payment Is Not Subject To Anti-Trust Scrutiny

On January 24, 2014, in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-cv-995, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9257 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014), Senior District Judge William H. Walls dismissed a putative, antitrust-class...more

The Current Intersection of Antitrust and Managed Care

This article provides a summary of key healthcare antitrust developments in 2013, highlighted by two important Supreme Court decisions: - In FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.,133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013), the Court...more

Top Stories of 2013: #4 to #6

Reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its seventh annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. For 2013, we identified fourteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year...more

Reverse payment deals under the microscope in the EU

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

Developments in Patent Law 2013; The D.C. Bar Year in Review

In this article: - Patentability, Validity, and Procurement of Patents - Interpretation and Infringement of Patents - Enforcement of Patents - Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court - Excerpt...more

Give It Back! Disgorgement – Another FTC Arrow against Reverse-Payment Settlements that Delay Generic Entry

If the uncertainty that the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision injected into the world of reverse-payment settlement litigation wasn’t enough to get your attention, then the FTC’s recent effort to obtain disgorgement from...more

Clearance: Proskauer's Quarterly Antitrust Update - Fall 2013

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

FTC v. Actavis: The Future of Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements After the Court’s Adoption of a “Rule of Reason” Framework

The recent Supreme Court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis was closely watched and anticipated because of the importance of patent litigation in the legal/regulatory scheme codified in the Hatch-Waxman...more

Can Reverse Payments In Patent Settlements Constitute Criminal Cartel Conduct?

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

Supreme Court corner - Q3 2013

RECENT DECISIONS - Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis - Decided: 6/17/2013 Patent Holding: (5-3) reverse payment settlement agreements should be reviewed based on a “rule of reason. In a split...more

Life Sciences Spotlight | Issue 3, 2013

IN THIS ISSUE: - FEATURES: - A new wave of regulatory enforcement actions in China – Are we witnessing a prolonged enforcement cycle? - Update on recent decisions - Australia’s innovation patent – The...more

The Antitrust Review Of The Americas 2013: US: Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Antitrust Law

United States antitrust laws seek to encourage free and open competition by preventing exclusionary conduct that threatens the competitive process. Intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, by contrast, are designed to...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 7 July 2013

In This Issue: • Isolated DNA not Patent Eligible • Appeals Before Damages and Willfulness Determination OK • Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements May be Invalid - Excerpt from Isolated DNA not Patent...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 7, July 2013

“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

Applying the Supreme Court’s Decision in Actavis: Consideration Value Comparisons by Courts Approving Reverse Payment Settlements

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that “reverse payment” pharma patent settlements within the scope of the patent may (or may not) violate the Sherman Act.1 The majority opinion in Actavis explained that Hatch-Waxman...more

IMS Study Shows Pro-Competitive Effects of Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements in ANDA Litigation

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

Reverse Payment Agreements Under Hatch-Waxman

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. No. 12-416. The question presented in the writ of certiorari concerned whether reverse payment agreements are per se...more

"Business Cases in the US Supreme Court"

The U.S. Supreme Court recently closed its 2012 term with its usual headline-grabbing flurry of June decisions. Several of those decisions, as well as many more that received less publicity, will affect business interests. In...more

The European Commission's first pay-for-delay anti-trust infringement decision

In June 2013, two important decisions regarding 'pay-for-delay' arrangements in the pharmaceuticals industry were made in the EU and US. Generally speaking, 'pay-for-delay' or 'reverse-payment settlements' involve a type of...more

Supreme Court, in FTC v. Actavis, rejects the “scope of the patent” test, holding that antitrust law’s “rule of reason” analysis...

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

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Q&A: Implications for Pharmaceutical Companies

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

Health Care Reform Implementation Update - June 27, 2013

The countdown is on now. Less than 100 days until the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) main provisions go into effect, and Organizing for Action and Enroll America kicked outreach efforts to the uninsured into high gear last week....more

Supreme Court Subjects Reverse Payment Settlements to Antitrust Review

In a recent opinion with powerful implications for drug manufacturers, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in FTC v. Actavis that reverse payment settlement agreements can violate the antitrust laws despite the antitrust immunity...more

Reverse Payment Schemes Risk Antitrust Liability: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Bright Line Test

A divided Supreme Court recently held in an opinion by Justice Breyer that “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between patent holders and potential competitors are not immune from scrutiny under antitrust laws....more

72 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3