Pay-For-Delay Antitrust Suits May Settle More Often After Jury Verdict For AstraZeneca
This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily
Executive Summary
Jury finds AstraZeneca’s Nexium patent infringement settlement with Ranbaxy was not antitrust violation; direct purchasers and third party payers claimed agreement was worth nearly $1 billion.
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.
‘Pay-For-Delay’ Deals Likely Put On Hold Themselves After Cipro Ruling
California Supreme Court finds patents are ‘probablistic rather than ironclad,’ and outlines four-prong antitrust test that further complicates brand/generic deal making.
Teva Settles Provigil Pay-For-Delay Class Action; Will FTC Deal Follow?
Teva plays it safe in $512 million agreement with direct purchasers, even though AstraZeneca won a jury verdict in similar suit, the first to go to trial since Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis decision.