News & Analysis as of

Cipro

Snell & Wilmer

Arizona Supreme Court Decides Cipro’s Black Box Warning Cannot Replace an Expert Opinion

Snell & Wilmer on

In Arizona, civil claims against health care professionals must be accompanied by a certified statement regarding whether “expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the health care professional’s standard of care or...more

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley

Lawsuits Involving Fluoroquinolones Piling Up Against Manufacturers

Google “fluoroquinolones,” and page after page of search results come up about the dangers, risks and side effects of the antibiotic. Articles appear citing arrhythmia, nerve damage and type 2 diabetes all being associated...more

WilmerHale

Promoting Antitrust Compliance – The Antitrust Division’s Subtle Shift Regarding Corporate Compliance: A Step Toward Incentivizing...

WilmerHale on

INTRODUCTION: A surprising feature of many corporate compliance programs is their limited emphasis on antitrust. Compliance efforts are a key feature of modern corporate governance initiatives, and it stands to reason...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

Foley & Lardner LLP

California Supreme Court Scrutinizes Reverse Payment ANDA Settlements

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In In Re Cipro Cases I & II, the California Supreme Court laid out a four-part rule of reason analysis for evaluating ANDA settlements that involve a reverse payment to the generic challenger (also referred to as “pay for...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay...

On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro holds that reverse payment settlements can be challenged under...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Following Actavis, California Supreme Court Crafts “Structured Rule of Reason” Test for Evaluating Pay-for-Delay Settlements

Last Thursday the Supreme Court of California decided In re Cipro Cases I & II, No. S198616 (Cal. May 7, 2015), holding that reverse payment, or “pay-for-delay,” settlements can be challenged as unreasonable restraints on...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

CA Supreme Court Issues First Decision Extending FTC v. Actavis to State Antitrust Litigation

Ballard Spahr LLP on

The California Supreme Court issued a decision today in the Cipro antitrust cases, concluding that the analysis set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis applies to alleged “pay-for-delay” pharmaceutical patent...more

Nossaman LLP

California Supreme Court to Determine Whether "Delay For Pay" Settlements in Patent Disputes Violate the Antitrust Provisions of...

Nossaman LLP on

Historically, contending parties have settled patent infringement cases by agreeing that the allegedly infringing party will not manufacture the product at issue during the term of the patentee's existing patent in return for...more

9 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