News & Analysis as of September 18, 2024

Supreme Court of the United States › Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

Clarity May Be Around the Corner for Antitrust Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP on 12/7/2023

In the ten years since the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis that reverse payment settlements—or settlements where a patent holder pays an accused patent infringer cash or other consideration to end...more

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

Haug Partners LLP on 10/11/2023

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

FTC Prevails in Reverse Payment Case

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 4/16/2021

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

Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Year in Review

A&O Shearman on 4/27/2018

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

The Effects of the Actavis Decision on Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements in ANDA cases -- Four Years After

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 7/12/2017

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers...more

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

Knobbe Martens on 11/15/2016

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

Recent Court Cases Interpreting “Reverse Payments” Post-Actavis

Perkins Coie on 7/5/2016

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

FTC’s Latest “Pay for Delay” Action Focuses on Noncash “Payments” and New “Product Hopping” Theory of Harm

BakerHostetler on 4/5/2016

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

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

BakerHostetler on 3/21/2016

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

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

Proskauer Rose LLP on 3/9/2016

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

1st Circuit Joins 3rd Circuit: Non-Cash Reverse Payments Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 3/1/2016

Courts continue to evaluate the degree to which “reverse payments” are permitted post-Actavis. In the latest of these decisions, issued on February 22, 2016, the First Circuit held that non-cash payments may run afoul of the...more

FTC Amicus Brief Confirms Need for Independent Proof of Causation in Private Reverse-Payment Antitrust Cases

Goodwin on 2/18/2016

In the ongoing battles over the antitrust treatment of pharmaceutical patent settlements, the Federal Trade Commission and private industry have not agreed on much. But a recent FTC amicus brief appears to signal a high level...more

IP Matters, Fall 2015

JAMS on 11/23/2015

Textile Copyright Cases Ripe for ADR - While normally focused on music and media matters, copyright lawyers in California have grown busy with something else: fabrics. Hundreds of textile copyright suits involving fabric...more

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on 10/30/2015

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

Turing, Daraprim, and Refusals to Deal with Generic Manufacturers

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 10/19/2015

Drug company Turing Pharmaceuticals made headlines recently when it reportedly raised the price of Daraprim, used commonly by AIDS patients to fight life-threatening infections, from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. Amidst...more

"Shifting Burdens: Structuring a Rule of Reason in Reverse-Payment Cases"

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on 9/29/2015

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. triggered a flurry of judicial activity in relation to pharmaceutical patent settlements allegedly involving reverse payments from patent...more

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

McDermott Will & Emery on 8/4/2015

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

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

Proskauer Rose LLP on 7/9/2015

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

FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation (II) (N.D. Ga.)

Robins Kaplan LLP on 8/8/2014

In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to apply a rule of reason analysis to defendants’ reverse payment settlement. On remand, defendants Solvay and...more

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

Robins Kaplan LLP on 6/2/2014

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

Antitrust Bulletin - Vol. 5, No. 1

Robins Kaplan LLP on 12/1/2013

In this Issue: - New Developments - U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Patent Agreements That Postpone the Sale of Generic Drugs Violate Antitrust Laws - Direct Purchasers Have Standing to Bring Antitrust...more

Clearance: Proskauer's Quarterly Antitrust Update - Fall 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on 11/25/2013

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Breyer, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of an FTC complaint under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission...more

Applying the Supreme Court’s Decision in Actavis: Consideration Value Comparisons by Courts Approving Reverse Payment Settlements

King & Spalding on 7/24/2013

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

IMS Study Shows Pro-Competitive Effects of Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements in ANDA Litigation

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 7/19/2013

Earlier this month, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) held a press conference to announce the release of a study of the effects of reverse settlement payment agreements in ANDA litigation. ...more

54 Results

View per page

Page: of 3

Supreme Court of the United States › Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"