News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation FTC v Actavis

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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Large and Unjustified: Second Circuit Clarifies Pleading Requirements in Reverse Payments Cases

On May 13—and more than ten years after Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on reverse payment settlements—the Second Circuit for the first time weighed in on whether (and how) antitrust...more

Haug Partners LLP

California, Rest In Peace: Pharmaceutical Companies, Keep Your Settlement Discussions Out of California

Haug Partners LLP on

For nearly a decade, the Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis decision has guided pharmaceutical litigators and advisors exploring the antitrust risks inherent in settling pharmaceutical patent lawsuits, especially when such...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

FTC Prevails in Reverse Payment Case

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

WilmerHale

Unprecedented State Law on Pharmaceutical “Reverse Payments” Goes Into Effect

WilmerHale on

A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more

White & Case LLP

California's New Reverse Payment Law Departs from Supreme Court Standard in FTC v. Actavis

White & Case LLP on

On October 7, 2019, California became the first state to enact legislation—Assembly Bill 824 ("AB 824")—rendering certain pharmaceutical patent litigation settlement agreements presumptively anticompetitive. This alert...more

Cooley LLP

Alert: FTC Challenges "No-AG" Agreement as Illegal Reverse Payment

Cooley LLP on

On March 30 the US Federal Trade Commission filed suit in federal court alleging that settlements of patent litigation in the pharmaceutical industry in which a pioneer firm agrees not to market an "authorized generic"...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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Circuit Lifts Injunction Against Sandoz

Sandoz successfully (at least for now) has overcome conventional wisdom, the plain language of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) (or, at least those provisions regarding patent litigation) and Amgen...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Third Circuit Extends Actavis to Reverse Settlement Agreements Involving Non-Cash Consideration - King Drug Company of Florence,...

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

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

Proskauer Rose LLP

First Federal Appellate Court Holds a NonCash Reverse Payment Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny: Is the Third Circuit's Decision in...

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

FTC Issues Report on ‘Pay-for-Delay’ Settlement Volume for FY 2013

The Federal Trade Commission staff recently issued a report detailing the number of “potential pay-for-delay settlements” that took place in fiscal year 2013. The FTC is a staunch opponent of so-called “pay-for-delay”—also...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Development in Pharma Patent Settlement Lawsuit

In one of the first tests of the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. addressing the antitrust treatment of pharmaceutical patent settlements, a recent jury on Dec. 5, 2014, returned a...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

First Post-Actavis Jury Verdict Goes to Defendants on Causation Question

After six weeks of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury has returned its verdict in favor of the defendants in In re: Nexium. This trial began as a challenge to the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the settlements...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

Robins Kaplan LLP

Jumping Into The Actavis Briar Patch — Insight Into How Courts May Structure Reverse Payment Antitrust Proceedings And The...

Robins Kaplan LLP on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. & Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

The Federal Circuit's decision in the consolidated appeals of Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. amply demonstrates the concept that you should be careful...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Antitrust and Competition: Nonmerger Enforcement Activity Heats Up on Both Sides of the Atlantic"

U.S. and European antitrust agencies had similar enforcement priorities last year, a trend we expect to continue in 2014. Nonmerger enforcement will continue to focus on intellectual property, financial services and...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

More Q&A from Webinar on Top Patent Law Stories of 2013

On Tuesday, we presented a live webinar on the "Top Patent Law Stories of 2013." The webinar covered ten of the fourteen stories that made it onto Patent Docs seventh annual list of top biotech/pharma patent stories. Posts...more

21 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