Court Orders Delisting of Patents from Orange Book and Denies Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Counterclaims for Improper Orange Book Listings. On June 10, Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of New Jersey entered judgment on...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies accused of violating antitrust laws by using reverse payments to delay entry of a generic version of a...more
On May 13—and more than ten years after Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on reverse payment settlements—the Second Circuit for the first time weighed in on whether (and how) antitrust...more
On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more
In February 2022, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California held that California Assembly Bill 824—which established a first-of-its kind presumption that certain pharmaceutical patent settlements are...more
On August 13, 2021, in a decision that largely flew under antitrust and patent practitioners’ radars, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh mostly denied a motion to dismiss in the alleged “reverse payment” case, In Re Xyrem...more
Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more
After a turbulent year that roiled the economy, and the health care sector more than most, the Democrats emerged with control of both the White House and Congress for the first time since 2014. Business leaders and in-house...more
On August 28, 2017, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied class certification for direct purchasers asserting Hatch-Waxman reverse-payment...more
On-Sale Bar Is No Bar for Selling Manufacturing Services to the Inventor - Addressing what constitutes an invalidating “sale” under § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the...more
It is not every day that antitrust plaintiff classes fail to win certification due to lack of numerosity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). Yet this week, absence of numerosity was the reason a Third Circuit...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more
International intellectual property regulations are doing serious damage to the pharmaceutical industry and, by extension, to the health of people around the world. The core of the problem: growing global concern about how...more
Recently, the Third Circuit issued the first federal appellate decision interpreting the Supreme Court's landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.[1], potentially greatly expanding the scope of settling parties in reverse...more
Nearly two years ago the Supreme Court issued its opinion in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), holding that a reverse payment made by a brand manufacturer to a generic manufacturer to resolve pending patent litigation...more
On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers....more
As it has frequently in the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday released a Report on the frequency of reverse payment settlement agreements in ANDA litigation between generic and branded drug makers,...more
More brand-name drug companies have been paying their competitors to delay their efforts to bring generic versions of blockbuster pharmaceuticals to market....more