News & Analysis as of

Antitrust Litigation Hatch-Waxman

Haug Partners LLP

10 Years after Actavis, the Cases that Follow Tell a Story

Haug Partners LLP on

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

K&L Gates LLP

Perrigo Co. v. AbbVie Inc. - Third Circuit Holds Mutual Release Bars Generic Drug Company's Antitrust Claim

K&L Gates LLP on

On 21 July 2022, the Third Circuit in Perrigo Co. v. AbbVie Inc. affirmed the district court’s judgment that the mutual release in the settlement agreement between the parties from an earlier patent infringement and...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

[Remote Event] Health Care Antitrust Under President Biden - What Health Care Companies May Expect By Way Of Antitrust Policy And...

Robins Kaplan LLP on

After a turbulent year that roiled the economy, and the health care sector more than most, the Democrats emerged with control of both the White House and Congress for the first time since 2014. Business leaders and in-house...more

Cozen O'Connor

First Circuit Permits Antitrust Claims for Improperly Listing a Device Patent on the FDA’s Orange Book to Move Forward

Cozen O'Connor on

In a holding that could significantly broaden the antitrust inquiry in the context of the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme, on February 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion that may have...more

Goodwin

Year in Review: Top Five Biosimilar Legal Developments of 2018

Goodwin on

Here are our picks for the top five most significant legal developments of 2018 that may impact the biosimilar industry: 1. New Law Requiring FTC/DOJ Review Of Biosimilar Patent Litigation Settlements - With the...more

WilmerHale

District Court Rejects Direct Purchaser Class for Failure to Satisfy Numerosity Requirement

WilmerHale on

On August 28, 2017, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied class certification for direct purchasers asserting Hatch-Waxman reverse-payment...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Third Circuit Holds No Sham Litigation or Unlawful Reverse Payment in Wellbutrin XL Litigation

The Third Circuit recently affirmed the grant of summary judgment to GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the nearly 10-year-old Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, which challenged the lawfulness of settlement agreements resolving...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Second Circuit Declares That, to Survive Motions to Dismiss, Antitrust Allegations Require Factual Support for All “Necessary...

Last Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated the judgment of the district court in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation. In doing so, the Second Circuit allowed only plaintiffs’ claims that...more

BakerHostetler

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

BakerHostetler on

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

Proskauer Rose LLP

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

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

FTC Issues Report on ANDA Settlement Agreements

In January, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on the terms of settlement agreements between branded and generic drug companies in ANDA litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act, according to the provisions of the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Cephalon and Teva's $1.2 Billion Consent Order with the FTC: Is it Really a Harbinger of Things to Come?

On June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a consent order (the “Consent Order”) between the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Cephalon, Inc. and its parent, Teva...more

BakerHostetler

Product Hopping and Antitrust: Mylan Court Dismisses Claims on Summary Judgment, Citing Need to Avoid Chilling Pharmaceutical...

BakerHostetler on

A recent summary judgment opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania breaks new ground in the developing antitrust law on “product hopping” claims. “Product hopping” refers to the practice of changing the form or...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

California Supreme Court Details Antitrust Analysis of "Reverse Payment" Patent Settlements

Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court's application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called "reverse payment"...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

After Actavis: Crafting Pharmaceutical Settlements that Avoid Antitrust Scrutiny

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

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

Cozen O'Connor

Supreme Court: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Cozen O'Connor on

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

Miller Canfield

Supreme Court Rules That Pay-For-Delay Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenges

Miller Canfield on

Antitrust challenges to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements in drug patent suits are allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Reverse Payment Settlements Now Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny, But Lower Courts Left to Fill in the Blanks

Earlier this week in FTC v. Actavis, No. 12-416 (U.S. Jun. 17, 2013), the Supreme Court handed down its long-anticipated ruling on “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” agreements, holding that these agreements—while not...more

Fenwick & West LLP

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

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

22 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