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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 238

Supreme Court revives FTC reverse payment challenge; says agreements can violate antitrust laws

  • Williams Mullen
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its more anticipated rulings of this term in a decision that aims squarely at the intersection of antitrust

Supreme Court says ‘reverse payment’ generic drug settlements are subject to rule of reason antitrust review

  • Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2013

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much anticipated ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. regarding the validity of

Supreme Court rules that “pay for delay” generic drug patent settlements are not shielded from antitrust liability

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 18 2013

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

Supreme Court rules on reverse payment settlements in Federal Trade Commission v Actavis Inc

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 17 2013

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called "reverse payment" settlement agreements should be

Update on a recent Supreme Court antitrustintellectual property case: “reverse payment” settlement agreements under FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (June 17, 2013)

  • Lathrop & Gage LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 17 2013

Since the enactment of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 ("Hatch-Waxman Act"), "pay for delay" or "reverse payment"

State action exemption narrowed by Fourth Circuit ruling

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2013

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that North Carolina's Dental Board cannot ban non-dentists from offering teeth-whitening service

FTC: dentists not shielded from teeth-whitening competition

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2013

In a ruling that may impact how professionals attempt to limit competition from alternative providers, the North Carolina State Board of Dental

Fourth Circuit & FTC: state dental board subject to federal antitrust laws in teeth-whitening case

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2013

The health care industry is familiar with the FTC's enforcement presence for anticompetitive business practices in health care markets. But in a case

Fourth Circuit rules North Carolina Dental Board’s cease and desist letters are not immunized by the state action doctrine

  • Arnold & Porter LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 11 2013

In a unanimous ruling handed down on May 31, 2013, the Fourth Circuit found that state action immunity did not apply to bar the FTC's claims that the

Fourth Circuit holds state agencies operated by market participants are private actors for state action purposes

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 11 2013

On May 31, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) determination that the North Carolina State