News & Analysis as of

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Supreme Court of the United States Pay-For-Delay

A&O Shearman

Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Year in Review

A&O Shearman on

This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...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

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Health Update - May 2016

Actions to Advance Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health - Editor's Note: Children's earliest experiences—both positive and negative—impact their brain formation and in turn their social and emotional, physical,...more

BakerHostetler

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

BakerHostetler on

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more

K&L Gates LLP

Third Circuit Says Actavis Not Limited to Cash

K&L Gates LLP on

In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 1

Robins Kaplan LLP on

In this Issue: - New Developments - U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Patent Agreements That Postpone the Sale of Generic Drugs Violate Antitrust Laws - Direct Purchasers Have Standing to Bring Antitrust...more

King & Spalding

Applying the Supreme Court’s Decision in Actavis: Consideration Value Comparisons by Courts Approving Reverse Payment Settlements

King & Spalding on

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that “reverse payment” pharma patent settlements within the scope of the patent may (or may not) violate the Sherman Act.1 The majority opinion in Actavis explained that Hatch-Waxman...more

Morgan Lewis

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Q&A: Implications for Pharmaceutical Companies

Morgan Lewis on

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may bring antitrust suits against so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, under which pioneer and generic...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 2

Robins Kaplan LLP on

In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more

Bracewell LLP

High Court Finds Antitrust Scrutiny Applies to Pay-for-Delay Settlements

Bracewell LLP on

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust challenge to a reverse payment settlement agreement between drug manufacturers, otherwise known as a “pay-for-delay”...more

Mintz

Supreme Court Holds That Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Mintz on

For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

FTC v. Actavis: "Reverse Payments"—Not Presumptively Lawful, Not Presumptively Unlawful, But Subject to a Rule-of-Reason Analysis

On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis. The 5-3 decision, however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was...more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Issues Significant Patent Antitrust Decision Rejecting The “Scope Of The Patent” Rule

Perkins Coie on

In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Supreme Court Holds that “Reverse Payment” Patent Settlements are Subject to Potential Antitrust Condemnation, but only After...

SUMMARY OF DECISION - In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ____ (Slip Op. June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the underlying antitrust merits of the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running...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

BakerHostetler

Supreme Court Rules That “Pay for Delay” Generic Drug Patent Settlements Are Not Shielded From Antitrust Liability

BakerHostetler on

The Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws may forbid patent settlements that delay the market entry of generic drugs in return for large payments from manufacturers of competing branded drugs....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on "Pay for Delay" Agreements

On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in "Pay-for-Delay" Patent Settlement Antitrust Case

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., will almost certainly have major implications for the viability of Federal Trade Commission and private suits alleging that pay-for-delay settlements...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