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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance

Results: 1-10 of 1,217

Shifting burdens: structuring a rule of reason in reverse-payment cases
  • Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
  • USA
  • September 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

Kimble v. Marvel: a cautionary tale for post-expiration royalties
  • Baker Botts LLP
  • USA
  • September 3 2015

The Supreme Court carefully guards the twenty-year expiration date of a patent, allowing the public the unrestricted right to make or use a patented

Antitrust implication of recent FTC patent related agreement
  • Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
  • USA
  • August 31 2015

In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has refocused its efforts on the interplay between the patent system and antitrust law

Another FTC conduct case to bolster generic drug competition: pharmaceuticals charged with illegal non-compete for generic ADHD drug sales
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • August 20 2015

The Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC" or "Commission") ever-expanding list of enforcement actions to preserve competition for generic pharmaceuticals

Third Circuit finds no authorized generic agreements can be a reverse payment under Actavis
  • Baker Botts LLP
  • USA
  • August 7 2015

A "reverse-payment settlement" recently has been described by the Supreme Court as when "Company A sues Company B for patent infringement. The two

Reverse payment settlements subject to antitrust challenge
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 30 2015

In a class action case assessing the implications of antitrust law in a patent infringement and validity settlement agreement, the Supreme Court of

Third Circuit extends Actavis to reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 29 2015

Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of

3M sued for “sham” patent infringement lawsuit
  • Fredrikson & Byron PA
  • USA
  • July 13 2015

A small rival of 3M, Moldex-Metric, Inc. (Moldex), claims that 3M brought baseless patent infringement claims to stifle competition. Moldex sued 3M

First federal appellate court holds a noncash reverse payment subject to antitrust scrutiny: is the Third Circuit's decision in King Drug a turning point?
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 9 2015

Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc

Third Circuit allows pay-for-delay suit despite no cash payment
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
  • USA
  • July 7 2015

On June 26, 2015, the Third Circuit extended Actavis to non-cash settlements and held that Actavis can cover a no-AG agreement - "a settlement in