Supreme Court of the United States Hatch-Waxman Pharmaceutical Industry

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

Super Moon Harkens Low Tide for Hatch-Waxman Patent Disputes

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in a case that will give pharmaceutical companies pause when considering whether to settle patent challenges under Hatch-Waxman. The Supreme Court’s...more

Hatch-Waxman Venue Update: Will SCOTUS Limit Where Brands Can Sue Generics?

Generic and branded pharma companies alike are waiting with baited breath to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman patent cases this term. After a broad ruling from the...more

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

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

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more

FTC’s Amicus Brief in Wellbutrin XL Appeal Highlights Significance for Interpretation of Actavis

The FTC has recently weighed in again on the evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The agency submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit in the appeal of...more

The First Circuit Agrees that Non-Cash Reverse Payments Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny. Does the Loestrin Decision Point to...

Recently, the First Circuit became the second federal appellate court interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. to hold that non-cash "reverse payments" between pioneer and generic...more

ANDA Update - October 2015

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

Third Circuit Extends Actavis to Reverse Settlement Agreements Involving Non-Cash Consideration - King Drug Company of Florence,...

Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court, applying the...more

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more

New Jersey Rulings Allay Personal Jurisdiction Concerns Raised by Daimler and Goodyear

Two judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey have denied motions to dismiss for personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman litigations based on the defendants’ compliance with New Jersey’s foreign...more

Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.

Case Name: Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2015) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Hughes, J.) (Appeal from S.D. Fla., Middlebrooks, J.) - Drug...more

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc.

Case Name: Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2012-1567, -1568, -1569, -1570, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10229 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Wallach presiding; Opinion by Moore,...more

First Federal Appellate Court Holds a NonCash Reverse Payment Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny: Is the Third Circuit's Decision in...

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

Lessons in Personal Jurisdiction for BPCIA Litigants after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler

An emerging issue in Hatch-Waxman litigation – and potentially under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) – is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.746 (2014), on...more

Will Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Change Patent Litigation?

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...more

Pay-For-Delay In 2014: Courts Fill In The Actavis Gaps

A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc. and affirmed that antitrust principles apply to reverse payment settlement agreements — those in which a brand-name drug...more

After Actavis: Crafting Pharmaceutical Settlements that Avoid Antitrust Scrutiny

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Actavis cleared the way for more antitrust challenges to settlements between generic and branded pharmaceutical companies resolving Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. As a result,...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

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

Supreme Court Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

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

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Rules on “Reverse Payment” Settlements in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more

Supreme Court Chooses Middle Ground in Assessing Reverse Payment Settlements

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion today in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that are...more

Supreme Court Declines Opportunity to Clarify Scope of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2013, denied GlaxoSmithKline’s petition for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe-harbor provision at 35 USC 271(e)(1) in Classen...more

24 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×