Supreme Court May Leave Brand-Generic Settlements Open To Further Litigation
During oral arguments in FTC v. Actavis, several justices were critical of the “scope of the patent” test advocated by pharma that presumes reverse-payment settlements are lawful; they questioned the ability of generic companies to be paid more than they would get if they won the patent suit.
You may also be interested in...
The high court will determine whether brand-generic reverse payments to settle patent disputes are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful when it takes up FTC v. Actavis; a ruling affirming the lower court would enable companies to enter agreements without the threat of litigation.
Of the 140 brand-generic patent settlements in FY 2012, 40 contained both compensation to the generic manufacturer and a restriction on generic entry; FTC announces this record number as its suit against Watson goes to Supreme Court.
FTC ends its losing streak on patent settlement suits as the Third Circuit says “rule of reason” rather than “scope of patent” analysis should be applied to brand/generic settlements; appeals court reinstates suit by direct purchasers challenging Schering’s payments to Upsher-Smith and ESI Lederle.