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...
Gilead, Teva Document Disclosures Helped Sway Jury In Rare Pay-For-Delay Trial
Teva’s counsel notes a key factor in the jury's finding that Gilead’s patent settlement with Teva did not include a reverse payment to delay entry of Truvada and Atripla generics. A second trial will proceed on claims a collaboration agreement between Gilead and Janssen was anticompetitive.
FTC Argues Forest Side Deals In Bystolic Pay-For-Delay Case May Be Unjustified Payments
Commission backs purchasers and end payers in appeal of district court dismissal of suits against Forest and six generic manufacturers. It contends the court contravened Supreme Court’s Actavis decision and proffered its own justifications for side deals in patent settlements.
FTC Argues Forest Side Deals In Bystolic Pay-For-Delay Case May Be Unjustified Payments
Commission backs purchasers and end payers in appeal of district court dismissal of suits against Forest and six generic manufacturers. It contends the court contravened Supreme Court’s Actavis decision and proffered its own justifications for side deals in patent settlements.