Topic
Reverse Payment Settlements
45 published works
Life Sciences Legal Update
Supreme Court Decision on Reverse Payments has Significant Implications for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
By Lisa Baird
Reed Smith’s Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog recently featured a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, where the court ruled five-to-three that reverse payments, also…
Antitrust Law Blog
FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?
By Bradley Graveline and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation.…
Antitrust Law Blog
<i>FTC v. Actavis</i>: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?
By Bradley Graveline and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation.…
Intellectual Property Law Blog
FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?
By Bradley Graveline, Jennifer Driscoll
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. In FTC v. Actavis,…
IP Intelligence
Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. – Supreme Court Holds Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements to be Analyzed under “Rule of Reason” Approach
By Jason Oliver
On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v.…
Antitrust, Competition and Trade
FTC v. Actavis: What Does It Mean for Reverse-Payment Settlements?
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. In FTC v. Actavis,…
The Contingency
High Court Reverses Reverse Payment Dismissal
The owner of a patent on a brand-name drug sues a competitor for infringing the patent. The parties settle. But the infringer doesn't pay. The patent-owner does. Why? In return…
Focus on Regulation
Key developments in “reverse payment” dispute: the Supreme Court agrees to weigh in, and a NJ court refuses to condemn exclusive authorized generics
This past week saw two key developments in the legal dispute over patent settlements including so-called “reverse payments.” First, the Supreme Court agreed to review an Eleventh Circuit decision dismissing…
The Contingency
Supreme Court to Rule in Reverse-Payment Case
Today the Supreme Court granted review in Federal Trade Comm'n v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, No. 12-416 (U.S.), an antitrust case that presents the question of whether section 1 of the Sherman…
The Brand Protection Blog
Pay-For-Delay Enforcement Heats Up in the Wake of In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
The Third Circuit’s decision in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation breathed new life into the FTC’s fight against pay-for-delay settlement agreements. Since that decision, the FTC has acted with renewed…