FTC Makes Double Reverse Payment Case Against Endo And Impax
Executive Summary
The generic firm essentially paid the brand to keep its product off the market, FTC alleges in case about Opana ER litigation. Endo considered bringing back its original formulation of oxymorphone but instead reached agreement with Impax to share profits of its generic, antitrust suit claims.
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.
Anticompetitive Drug Rebates May Need FTC Rulemaking For Timely Reform, Commissioners Say
‘Rebate walls’ report heads to US Congress, but Democratic commissioners suggest FTC’s typical approach to curtailing such practices is too time consuming.