I. Introduction - No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term “reverse payment...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
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
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
On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,1 which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This case addresses a type of patent litigation settlement...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
[Ed. The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. While Patent Docs will provide analysis regarding the oral argument in a subsequent post, we provide the following...more
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to address whether and when “reverse payment” agreements made to settle ANDA litigation violate antitrust laws....more