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 1,171

Appellate Court weighs in on pharmaceutical “product hopping”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 30 2015

As the first court of appeals to address the issue of product hopping, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s

Supreme Court upholds Brulotte rule prohibiting post-expiration patent royalties
  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • USA
  • June 23 2015

On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the rule, first announced in Brulotte v

Rebuffing critics, Supreme Court re-affirms ban on post-expiration patent royalties
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2015

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of royalties after a patent’s expiration constitutes per se

Expanded HSR antitrust reporting for pharma licensing deals is here to stay
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2015

On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in its ruling in Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC, upheld the FTC's expansion

Expanded FTC premerger notification rules specific to the pharmaceutical industry are upheld by the D.C. Circuit
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • June 19 2015

The D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a lower court's decision upholding regulations adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requiring a Hart

Second Circuit antitrust decision creates uncer tainty for non-practice of patents
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • June 11 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's recent decision in New York v. Actavis PLC appeared on its face to address a narrow issue of

Federal Trade Commission reaches record $1.2 billion proposed “pay for delay” settlement with Cephalon and injunctive relief restricting future similar settlements of patent infringement cases
  • Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2015

Last week, on the eve of trial, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) reached a proposed settlement in its civil antitrust lawsuit against Cephalon

Federal Trade Commission continues march “to set a standard for the industry” with Cephalon settlement
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2015

On May 28, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals, which acquired

FTC’s $1.2 billion disgorgement settlement with Cephalon: heightened scrutiny of Hatch-Waxman settlements
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • June 2 2015

On May 28, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. (now owned by Teva

Second Circuit holds that coercive “product hopping” likely violates antitrust law
  • Kaye Scholer LLP
  • USA
  • June 1 2015

In New York v. Actavis, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals became the First Circuit to address so-called "product hopping" in the pharmaceutical