We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 32

FTC report on drug company "pay-for-delay" agreements

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 27 2010

The Federal Trade Commission has released a "staff study" entitled "Pay for Delay: How Drug Company Pay-Offs Cost Consumers Billions."

FTC chair calls for ban to pay-for-delay settlements

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 25 2010

On January 13, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released a study critical of "pay-for-delay" patent litigation settlements by which brand-name drug companies pay generic competitors to keep generic drugs off the market

Second Circuit allows drug purchasers standing to assert Walker Process claims

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2010

In In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig the Second Circuit reversed a district court ruling which had found that direct purchasers lacked standing to challenge a brand name manufacturer's alleged fraud on the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO

Antitrust issues in generic drug settlements: recent developments and considerations in where to draw a line

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 21 2009

In the next few months, there will be new legislation (or, failing that, continued antitrust agency enforcement efforts) to restrict the use of litigation settlement agreements to resolve disputes between pharmaceutical industry IP rights holders and generic drug companies

Enforcement agencies stand united against reverse payment patent settlements

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 17 2009

Under the previous administration, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) pursuit of antitrust challenges to patent settlements with so-called 'reverse payments' ran into at least two hurdles: (i) sceptical courts that refused to accept the FTC's theory for imposing antitrust liability; and (ii) 'friendly fire' from the Department of Justice, which was also concerned about the legality and economic effects of such patent settlements, but which viewed the FTC's proposed legal standard as too strict

Antitrust challenges to petitions required to demonstrate delay of ANDA approval

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 10 2009

In two recent cases involving antitrust claims against branded manufacturers for alleged attempts to delay and prevent generic entry, the plaintiffs alleged that each branded manufacturer filed a frivolous citizen petition with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which delayed FDA approval of generic products

The FTC's latest remarks in opposition to reverse payment settlements: banning them would save consumers $35 billion

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2009

The Federal Trade Commission's Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, continued the FTC's aggressive campaign against reverse payment settlements (also called "pay-for-delay" or "exclusion" settlements) by delivering a speech at the Center for American Progress entitled "'Pay-for Delay' Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: How Congress Can Stop Anticompetitive Conduct, Protect Consumers' Wallets, and Help Pay for Health Care Reform (The $35 Billion Solution)" (June 23, 2009

The latest advance in the debate over reverse payment settlements: will the Supreme Court punt, again?

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 12 2009

On April 24, 2009, a group of professors of law, economics and business, together with the American Antitrust Institute, the Public Patent Foundation, and AARP (collectively "amici") filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Cirpoflaxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Cipro"

FTC implements new legal strategy in judicial challenge to patent settlement

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 7 2009

On February 2 2009 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed its latest challenge to a patent litigation settlement involving a so-called 'reverse payment'

Court rejects antitrust claims in enoxaparin patent lawsuit

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2009

On February 17, the Federal District Court in the Central District of California dismissed the antitrust claims in a lawsuit between generic manufacturer Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Amphastar) and Aventis Pharma S.A. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Aventis”