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
Share on
|
|
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds the practice of a pharmaceutical company that does not require plaintiffs to meet any “threshold burden” in establishing a large reverse payment as unjustified in triggering analysis under antitrust rules of reason (Cephalon)
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.
