News & Analysis as of

Settlement FTC v Actavis

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

Latham & Watkins LLP

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Lamictal Pay-For-Delay Litigation

Latham & Watkins LLP on

Third Circuit has previously ruled that non-cash payments to settle patent litigation may violate antitrust laws. On November 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the petition of...more

Troutman Pepper

FTC Report Tallies Hatch-Waxman Settlements in First Full Year After Actavis

Troutman Pepper on

On January 13, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) released an overview of the pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the Commission in Fiscal Year 2014 (October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014). The...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Better Early than Never: SDNY Dismisses Lawsuit over Patent Settlement where Generics were Granted Early-Entry Licenses with...

On September 22, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Takeda Pharmaceuticals and three generic drug manufacturers based on settlements they had reached regarding a...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

FTC’s $1.2 Billion Disgorgement Settlement With Cephalon: Heightened Scrutiny of Hatch-Waxman Settlements

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On May 28, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. (now owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.), which alleged that Cephalon had made “reverse...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Reverse Payments, Actavis, and the Lower Courts at Sea, Part 2: The Brewing Conflict Over Non-Cash Settlements

Our first post in this series was titled “What Is a Reverse Payment?” As the recent cases discussed in today’s post show, the courts are struggling with a fundamental component of that question: What, for that matter, is a...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

After Actavis: Crafting Pharmaceutical Settlements that Avoid Antitrust Scrutiny

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Actavis cleared the way for more antitrust challenges to settlements between generic and branded pharmaceutical companies resolving Hatch-Waxman patent litigation. As a result,...more

Proskauer Rose LLP

Clearance: Proskauer's Quarterly Antitrust Update - Fall 2013

Proskauer Rose LLP on

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

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

K&L Gates LLP

Supreme Court Applies Rule of Reason in Antitrust Challenges to Reverse-Payment Patent Settlements

K&L Gates LLP on

One of the most controversial antitrust issues for the pharmaceutical industry during the last decade has been the treatment of patent settlements in which a patent-holding branded manufacturer made payments to its generic...more

Mintz

Supreme Court Holds That Reverse Payment Patent Settlements Are Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

Mintz on

For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...more

Dechert LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rejection of the “Scope of the Patent” Test in FTC v. Actavis Has Wide-Ranging Implications

Dechert LLP on

Key Points: - Patent settlements must be analyzed under the rule of reason, requiring a full analysis of the net competitive effects - Payments to an alleged infringer may be permissible if justified by, for...more

12 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