A US Court issues formalistic ruling on reverse-payment settlements after ’Actavis’ (GSK / Teva)

On January 24, 2014, Judge William Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued one of the first rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The Court in Actavis made clear that settlements by which brand-name drug firms paid generics to delay entering the market could violate the antitrust laws, but left open issues such as what constituted a payment. In In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 282755 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014), Judge Walls offered a narrow, formalistic ruling on this question. Facts The case involved GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s (GSK)’s Lamictal tablets and chewables, which treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, and which boasted sales exceeding $2 billion per year. Lamictal,

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

Michael Carrier, A US Court issues formalistic ruling on reverse-payment settlements after ’Actavis’ (GSK / Teva), 21 January 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin Licensing agreements, Art. N° 63588

Visites 181

All issues

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