News & Analysis as of

Antitrust Violations › Reverse Payments

Zelle LLP

Stop, Collaborate and Listen! What to Know About the FTC and DOJ’s Withdrawal of the Competitor Collaboration Guidelines

Zelle LLP on

In his eponymous 1990 hit, Robert Van Winkle—Vanilla Ice—promised: “If there was a problem yo I’ll solve it.” If only the FTC and DOJ (the “Agencies”) could make the same pledge. Instead, their sudden decision to withdraw...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Pay for Delay Is Sometimes Okay

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Jury Finds Gilead and Teva Did Not Engage in an Anticompetitive Pay-for-Delay Scheme for HIV Drugs

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on

On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more

Haug Partners LLP

Xryem: Pharmaceutical Settlement Acceleration Clause Found Anticompetitive Due To Risk Of “Profit Crushing Competition”

Haug Partners LLP on

On August 13, 2021, in a decision that largely flew under antitrust and patent practitioners’ radars, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh mostly denied a motion to dismiss in the alleged “reverse payment” case, In Re Xyrem...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - Volume 2, Number 3

McDermott Will & Emery on

On-Sale Bar Is No Bar for Selling Manufacturing Services to the Inventor - Addressing what constitutes an invalidating “sale” under § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

District Court Narrowly Defines the Relevant Market in Post-Actavis Pay-For-Delay Suit

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more

6 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide