Pay-for-delay agreements

Patent Antitrust

/ /Leave a comment

Opening a new front in litigation over so-called reverse payment pharmaceutical patent infringement settlements, the California Supreme Court recently held that private parties can challenge these settlements under its state antitrust law, the Cartwright Act.[1] The court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision interpreting federal antitrust law in F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.,[2] importing…

Conspiracy to Restrain Trade, Patent Antitrust

(Wolters Kluwer)/ /Leave a comment

The federal district court in Boston has rejected a request from purchasers of AstraZeneca LP’s heartburn medication Nexium for a new trial to challenge a “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” agreement between AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals to block the entry of a generic version of the drug. Judge Young’s lengthy opinion provides an interesting look at the trial…

FTC Enforcement, IP Antitrust, Patent Antitrust

(Cleveland-Marshall College of Law)/ /Leave a comment

It’s going to be a strict, nearly-per-se quick look rule, folks, in more or less every reverse-payment case likely to be brought from here on out.  Dollars-to-donuts. A few weeks have gone by, and quite a lot of folks are chewing over the entrails of Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. The case may finally…

FTC Enforcement, IP Antitrust, Patent Antitrust

(Wolters Kluwer)/ /Leave a comment

A “reverse payment” settlement agreement is not entitled to “near-automatic antitrust immunity” simply because its anticompetitive effects fall within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week in a five-to-three decision. Although such agreements, also known as “pay-for-delay” settlements, are not presumptively unlawful, the FTC should be…