News & Analysis as of

Pay-For-Delay Antitrust Violations

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

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

FTC’s Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suit Over Opioid License Agreement Between Endo and Impax Dismissed Because Patent Act Permits...

Haug Partners LLP on

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, released a redacted opinion dismissing the Federal Trade Commission’s follow-on antitrust suit regarding Endo...more

Latham & Watkins LLP

Pay-for-delay: Review of the ECJ judgment in Lundbeck (Citalopram)

Latham & Watkins LLP on

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) has confirmed that pay-for-delay agreements with generic manufacturers ready to enter the market violate EU antitrust rules. ...more

Haug Partners LLP

FDA And FTC To Scrutinize Biologics Competition

Haug Partners LLP on

On February 3, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint statement announcing their plans to collaborate in promoting competitive biological product markets and...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

Dechert LLP

The Servier Judgment: A Breath of Fresh Air for Pharmaceutical Companies?

Dechert LLP on

On 12 December 2018, the General Court (“Court”) partially annulled the European Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 in the Servier case and consequently reduced Servier’s fine by more than 30%, from €330.99 million to...more

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

Jones Day

European Commission Sets its Sights on Allegedly Excessive Drug Prices

Jones Day on

In the European Union, Big Pharma has been operating with a target on its back for the best part of the last decade. Following its 2008 sector inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector, the Commission vowed to clamp down on...more

Knobbe Martens

Ranbaxy and AstraZeneca Prevail in Nexium® Pay-For-Delay Case

Knobbe Martens on

On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a 2014 jury verdict for AstraZeneca (AZ) and Ranbaxy regarding a 2012 payment of $700 million from AstraZeneca for Ranbaxy to abandon its challenge...more

Knobbe Martens

Supreme Court Will Not Review Pay-For-Delay Case over GSK’s Lamictal

Knobbe Martens on

On November 7, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from a Third Circuit decision finding that a settlement between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Teva) involving the...more

Carlton Fields

Third Circuit Creates Framework for Analyzing Numerosity

Carlton Fields on

The Third Circuit recently vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into agreements...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

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

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

McGuireWoods LLP

Antitrust Fines for Pharma Pay-for-Delay: the UK Gets in on the Act

McGuireWoods LLP on

On February 12, 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK’s antitrust regulator, handed out a huge fine for a pay-for-delay antitrust law infringement in the UK. Although the CMA has been...more

14 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