News & Analysis as of

Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Actavis Inc.

Dechert LLP

The FTC Requires Largest-Ever Generic Drug Divestiture

Dechert LLP on

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced a settlement resolving its competitive concerns over the merger of two leading generic drug manufacturers – Teva and Allergan. In July 2015, Teva agreed to acquire...more

Perkins Coie

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

Perkins Coie on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (3rd Cir. 2015)

Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis in 2013, courts (predominantly district courts) have grappled with the scope of the decision. It was evident that the presence of a large cash payment from the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter

District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT)...more

BakerHostetler

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. – Supreme Court Holds Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements to be Analyzed under...

BakerHostetler on

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. 570 U.S. __ (2013), Slip Op....more

McDermott Will & Emery

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

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Troutman Pepper

Drug Company Patent Settlements Subject To Rule Of Reason Antitrust Scrutiny

Troutman Pepper on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That “Reverse Payment” Settlements in ANDA Litigation Are Not Presumptively Unlawful But Must Be Assessed...

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on June 17, 2013 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Actavis. Writing for the majority that included Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, Justice Breyer’s opinion...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Game-Changer: Rule of Reason Applies to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlements

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4545 (U.S. June 17, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit decision in FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298 (2012),...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 today in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Writing for the majority that included Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, Justice Breyer's opinion reversed the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Par/Paddock Answers FTC Before Supreme Court

Par PharmaceuticalPar/Paddock, one of the generic drug company defendants in FTC v. Actavis Inc. et al. (the "reverse payment" ANDA settlement case now before the Supreme Court) filed its reponsive brief last week. In it,...more

12 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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