News & Analysis as of

Pay-For-Delay Patents 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

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

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

BPLA Panel with Judge Young on Reverse Payments after Actavis

On October 26, the Boston Patent Law Association will host a panel featuring Judge William Young to discuss the legal landscape following the Supreme Court’s 2014 opinion in Actavis v. FTC...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

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

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

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

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

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

FTC Continues Aggressive Posture On Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements With Reference To Disgorgement

In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Pay-for-delay to Stay FTC’s Top Priority

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a recent interview, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Competition chairwoman Deborah Feinstein announced that targeting pay-for-delay arrangements by pharmaceutical companies would continue as a top priority for the...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Business Cases in the US Supreme Court"

The U.S. Supreme Court recently closed its 2012 term with its usual headline-grabbing flurry of June decisions. Several of those decisions, as well as many more that received less publicity, will affect business interests. In...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Reverse Payment Schemes Risk Antitrust Liability: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Bright Line Test

A divided Supreme Court recently held in an opinion by Justice Breyer that “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between patent holders and potential competitors are not immune from scrutiny under antitrust laws....more

Miller Canfield

Supreme Court Rules That Pay-For-Delay Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenges

Miller Canfield on

Antitrust challenges to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements in drug patent suits are allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc....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

BakerHostetler

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. – Supreme Court Holds Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements to be Analyzed under...

BakerHostetler on

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. 570 U.S. __ (2013), Slip Op....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

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Litigation Alert: U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh In on Reverse Payment Deals

Fenwick & West LLP on

On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,1 which is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. This case addresses a type of patent litigation settlement...more

25 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