FTC Challenges H&R Block's Marketing and Data Practices
4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Navigating Emerging Privacy Issues in Financial Services — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Navigating the Labyrinth of Private Equity Investments in Health Care – Diagnosing Health Care
California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
FTC CFPB Enforcement Report — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
Balch’s Decision Dive: Texas Trial Court Struck Down the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
Employment Law Now VIII-146 - Latest Update on FTC Non-Compete Ban Plus 3 Summer Reminders for Employers
Urgent Action on Restrictive Covenants: Employers Must Prepare for FTC Rules
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers (Podcast)
#WorkforceWednesday: What Is the Future of Non-Compete Agreements for Employers? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The FTC and Connecticut Join Forces for Action Against Nissan Dealer
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Deceptive Reviews and Testimonials
Managing Social Media Risk
Under the Supreme Court's Chevron doctrine, courts will defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute unless that interpretation is unreasonable. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,...more
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) spent the better part of a decade attacking the practice of innovator drug companies settling ANDA litigation by providing payments to generic applicants challenging the validity of Orange...more
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers...more
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
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
Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court, applying the...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
In This Issue: - INTRODUCTION - WHAT ARE REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? ..The Basic Framework of Hatch-Waxman Litigation ..The Federal Trade Commission’s View of Reverse Payment Settlements and Its...more
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
In a move that will surprise almost no one (except perhaps members of the Supreme Court majority in FTC v. Actavis), the Federal Trade Commission has filed an amicus curiae brief with the District Court of New Jersey in In re...more
Earlier this month, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) held a press conference to announce the release of a study of the effects of reverse settlement payment agreements in ANDA litigation. ...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ruled on the long-awaited FTC v. Actavis case concerning ANDA reverse payments, resolving a sharp circuit split. The Court held that settlement agreements that include reverse payments to end...more
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
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
[Ed. The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. While Patent Docs will provide analysis regarding the oral argument in a subsequent post, we provide the following...more
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
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to address whether and when “reverse payment” agreements made to settle ANDA litigation violate antitrust laws....more