The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds that Actavis does not require plaintiffs to meet any sort of “threshold burden” for establishing that a large reverse payment is unjustified to trigger analysis under the antitrust rule of reason (Modafinil)

In re Modafinil Litigation Finds No “Threshold Burden” in Reverse Payment Suit* On Wednesday, January 28, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc. v.Cephalon, Inc. (In re Modafinil), the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), does not require plaintiffs in an antitrust case challenging a brand-generic patent litigation settlement to meet any sort of “threshold burden” of establishing that a large reverse payment is unjustified to trigger analysis under the antitrust rule of reason. In so holding, the court arguably shifted to defendants the burden of establishing a justification for any reverse payment made. Defendant Cephalon, Inc., the manufacturer of branded Provigil, had brought patent litigations against several

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

Authors

Quotation

Karin E. Garvey, Laura Shores, The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds that Actavis does not require plaintiffs to meet any sort of “threshold burden” for establishing that a large reverse payment is unjustified to trigger analysis under the antitrust rule of reason (Modafinil), 28 January 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin January 2015, Art. N° 71495

Visites 142

All issues

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