The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rules that showing the reverse payment settlement eliminated the possibility of an earlier generic entry is enough to infer anticompetitive effect (Endo / Impax)

In Short The Background: In the Supreme Court's landmark 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, the Court determined that large payments by branded drugmakers to potential generic entrants to settle patent disputes could be anticompetitive. It instructed district courts to apply the "rule of reason" standard to analyze whether particular settlements were illegal. The Development: The Actavis case left many unanswered questions about how courts would apply the rule of reason to settlements in pharmaceutical IP litigation. The recent Impax decision is the first reverse payment case fully litigated by the FTC since Actavis and resulted in a victory for the FTC. Looking Ahead: While injury and causation issues will continue to be a focus of private litigation, the Fifth Circuit's decision in

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

  • Jones Day (New York)
  • Jones Day (Washington DC)
  • Jones Day (Washington DC)
  • Jones Day (Washington DC)
  • Jones Day (Washington DC)

Quotation

Sarah A. Geers, Jonathan Berman, Larissa Bergin, Rosanna McCalips, Ryan C. Thomas, The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rules that showing the reverse payment settlement eliminated the possibility of an earlier generic entry is enough to infer anticompetitive effect (Endo / Impax), 13 April 2021, e-Competitions April 2021, Art. N° 100822

Visites 181

All issues

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