The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine, since such a conclusion would have contradicted the decision of the Supreme Court finding that a reverse payment settlement agreement should be subject to antitrust scrutinity (Actavis)

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter* District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT) (N.D. GA April 21, 2014). In April 1999, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Solvay”) filed a New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to commercially market a testosterone replacement gel (“AndroGel”). The gel had been developed from a pharmaceutical formula by Besins Healthcare, S.A. (“Besins”). Solvay and Besins thereafter filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). A patent was subsequently issued. Before its issuance, other companies developed generic

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Don T. Hibner, Jr., The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine, since such a conclusion would have contradicted the decision of the Supreme Court finding that a reverse payment settlement agreement should be subject to antitrust scrutinity (Actavis), 18 April 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin April 2014, Art. N° 66759

Visites 62

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues