The U.S. 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

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, The U.S. 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 April 2014, Art. N° 66759

Visites 217

All issues

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