News & Analysis as of September 19, 2024

Supreme Court of the United States › Pay-For-Delay

+ Follow

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 -

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

McDermott Will & Emery on 5/24/2024

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more

Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Year in Review

A&O Shearman on 4/27/2018

This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more

Supreme Court Will Not Review Pay-For-Delay Case over GSK’s Lamictal

Knobbe Martens on 11/15/2016

On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from a Third Circuit decision finding that a settlement between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) involving the...more

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

Perkins Coie on 7/5/2016

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

Health Update - May 2016

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 5/24/2016

Actions to Advance Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health - Editor's Note: Children's earliest experiences—both positive and negative—impact their brain formation and in turn their social and emotional, physical,...more

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

BakerHostetler on 4/5/2016

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

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

Proskauer Rose LLP on 3/9/2016

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

1st Circuit Joins 3rd Circuit: Non-Cash Reverse Payments Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 3/1/2016

Courts continue to evaluate the degree to which “reverse payments” are permitted post-Actavis. In the latest of these decisions, issued on February 22, 2016, the First Circuit held that non-cash payments may run afoul of the...more

Comcast and its Discontents

Pierce Atwood LLP on 10/29/2015

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), I appeared before a federal district judge on a motion to dismiss...more

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

K&L Gates LLP on 8/3/2015

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

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

Zelle LLP on 12/22/2014

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

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 1

Robins Kaplan LLP on 12/1/2013

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

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

King & Spalding on 7/24/2013

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

"Business Cases in the US Supreme Court"

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on 7/15/2013

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

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2013

King & Spalding on 7/10/2013

In This Issue: *News from the Bench - Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling on Gene Patentability: Natural DNA “No”/ cDNA “Yes” - CAFC Reverses Denial of Permanent Injunction Based on Perceived Future...more

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

Morgan Lewis on 7/1/2013

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

Robins Kaplan LLP on 7/1/2013

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

Health Care Reform Implementation Update - June 27, 2013

Cozen O'Connor on 6/28/2013

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 Votes Pro-Arbitration Once Again and Upholds Class Arbitration Waiver

Orrick - Employment Law and Litigation on 6/26/2013

Lest there be any lingering confusion, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again reminded us that arbitration agreements are to be “rigorously enforced.”...more

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

Bracewell LLP on 6/24/2013

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

Mintz on 6/24/2013

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

“Reverse Payment” Settlements Subject to Greater Antitrust Scrutiny: Implications of Supreme Court FTC v. Actavis Ruling

McDermott Will & Emery on 6/21/2013

By rejecting the “scope of the patent” test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” the Supreme Court of the United States subjects such settlements to greater antitrust...more

Supreme Court Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

Foley & Lardner LLP on 6/20/2013

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

Drug Company Patent Settlements Subject To Rule Of Reason Antitrust Scrutiny

Troutman Pepper on 6/20/2013

This week, the Supreme Court announced that “reverse payment” settlements of patent litigation between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies are, when challenged in a subsequent antitrust case, to be judged under the...more

FTC v. Actavis: "Reverse Payments"—Not Presumptively Lawful, Not Presumptively Unlawful, But Subject to a Rule-of-Reason Analysis

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on 6/19/2013

On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis. The 5-3 decision, however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was...more

35 Results

View per page

Page: of 2

Supreme Court of the United States › Pay-For-Delay

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