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
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 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
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
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