News & Analysis as of

Reverse Payments, Actavis, and the Lower Courts at Sea, Part 2: The Brewing Conflict Over Non-Cash Settlements

Our first post in this series was titled “What Is a Reverse Payment?” As the recent cases discussed in today’s post show, the courts are struggling with a fundamental component of that question: What, for that matter, is a...more

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation (II) (N.D. Ga.)

In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to apply a rule of reason analysis to defendants’ reverse payment settlement. On remand, defendants Solvay and...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

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

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

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

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 1

In this Issue: - New Developments - U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Patent Agreements That Postpone the Sale of Generic Drugs Violate Antitrust Laws - Direct Purchasers Have Standing to Bring Antitrust...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

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

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

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

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 2

In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...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

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

High Court Finds Antitrust Scrutiny Applies to Pay-for-Delay Settlements

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

Supreme Court Holds That Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

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

FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?

On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation....more

59 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3