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 1,192

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


Pay-for-delay holding extends to “other unusual, unexplained transfer of value”
  • Fanelli Haag
  • USA
  • July 6 2015

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a district court's dismissal of an antitrust suit challenging a


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