News & Analysis as of

Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements Hatch-Waxman

Haug Partners LLP

10 Years after Actavis, the Cases that Follow Tell a Story

Haug Partners LLP on

I. Introduction - No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term “reverse payment...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes - April 19th - 20th, New York, NY

Hosted by ACI, 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference returns to New York City for another exciting year with curated programming that not only addresses the hot topics, but also puts them within the context of pre-suit...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 17th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference - April 26th - 27th, New York City, NY

Premier forum which shapes the law, policy, and proceedings of Paragraph IV Litigation is back to New York City on April 26-27! Pharmaceutical patent practitioners from across the globe attend this flagship conference to...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

Haug Partners LLP

The Sham Litigation Exception after AbbVie - Is the Subjective Element a Sham?

Haug Partners LLP on

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued AbbVie and Besins Healthcare, co-owners of a patent that covered brand AndroGel, in 2017. The FTC claimed that the manufacturers had brought “sham” patent infringement litigation in...more

Morgan Lewis - As Prescribed

Proposed Antitrust Legislation Targets Pharmaceutical Industry, Would Grant FTC More Powers

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee recently voted three bills out of committee that target the pharmaceutical industry practices of so-called “reverse...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

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

WilmerHale

District Court Rejects Direct Purchaser Class for Failure to Satisfy Numerosity Requirement

WilmerHale on

On August 28, 2017, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied class certification for direct purchasers asserting Hatch-Waxman reverse-payment...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Third Circuit Holds No Sham Litigation or Unlawful Reverse Payment in Wellbutrin XL Litigation

The Third Circuit recently affirmed the grant of summary judgment to GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the nearly 10-year-old Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, which challenged the lawfulness of settlement agreements resolving...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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Two reverse-payment appeals to watch

It has been over three years since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision. Since then, numerous putative class actions alleging harm to competition as a result of “reverse-payment” settlements have flooded the courts. The...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

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

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

BakerHostetler

FTC’s Amicus Brief in Wellbutrin XL Appeal Highlights Significance for Interpretation of Actavis

BakerHostetler on

The FTC has recently weighed in again on the evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The agency submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit in the appeal of...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

The First Circuit Agrees that Non-Cash Reverse Payments Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny. Does the Loestrin Decision Point to...

Proskauer Rose LLP on

Recently, the First Circuit became the second federal appellate court interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. to hold that non-cash "reverse payments" between pioneer and generic...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

FTC Files Amicus Brief in First Circuit Seeking to Clarify Analysis in Post-Actavis Cases

Direct and indirect purchasers of Nexium recently appealed District of Massachusetts Judge William Young’s denial of a request for a new trial in In re: Nexium to the First Circuit. As we previously reported, In re: Nexium...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

FTC Issues Report on ANDA Settlement Agreements

In January, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on the terms of settlement agreements between branded and generic drug companies in ANDA litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act, according to the provisions of the...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

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

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Cephalon and Teva's $1.2 Billion Consent Order with the FTC: Is it Really a Harbinger of Things to Come?

On June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a consent order (the “Consent Order”) between the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Cephalon, Inc. and its parent, Teva...more

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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