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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A sweeping new opinion from the California Supreme Court revives California Cartwright Act challenges to pay-for-delay pharmaceutical patent settlements. In re Cipro Cases I & II, (Case No. S198616, Slip Op. May 7, 2015). A...more
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
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
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
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