Pay-For-Delay Deals May Be Smaller After Supreme Court Okays FTC Suits
Executive Summary
Justices rule FTC can make its case in court that Solvay’s reverse payment settlement with Actavis and two other generic companies was anticompetitive; GPhA says opinion could decrease the number of patent challenges by generic manufacturers, but Actavis pledges to continue defending these deals.
You may also be interested in...
FTC v. Endo: Exclusive Licenses, ‘Supracompetitive Prices’ Are Protected By Patent Laws
In an unsealed redacted opinion dismissing FTC’s complaint, district judge says Endo’s agreement with Impax, which left it the sole marketer of oxymorphone ER, falls within the bounds of anticompetitive activity protected by patent laws.
FTC v. Endo: Exclusive Licenses, ‘Supracompetitive Prices’ Are Protected By Patent Laws
In an unsealed redacted opinion dismissing FTC’s complaint, district judge says Endo’s agreement with Impax, which left it the sole marketer of oxymorphone ER, falls within the bounds of anticompetitive activity protected by patent laws.
FTC Claims Revived Over Teva-AbbVie 'Pay For Delay' Deal
AbbVie and FTC both see wins and setbacks in Third Circuit ruling on case involving reverse-payment patent settlement with Teva.