The US District Court for the District of Delaware contradicts the Supreme Court precedent regarding patent settlements in the pharmaceutical sector (Chimicles Schwartz Kriner / Donaldson-Smith / Amgen / Teva / Watson / Actavis)

A Nov. 30 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, In re: Sensipar Antitrust Litigation, contradicts controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent and, if followed, could have significant implications for patent settlements well outside the pharmaceutical context in which it arises. [1] Under the 2013 Supreme Court decision Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc., [2] a routine compromise of a damages claim in connection with a patent settlement should not raise antitrust concerns. Yet under Sensipar, the hundreds or thousands of patent settlements that involve such compromises might now be recast by aggressive plaintiffs as reverse-payment settlements subject to antitrust litigation, regardless of the industry. The district court's decision is wrong, potentially

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

  • White & Case (New York)
  • White & Case (Washington)
  • White & Case (Washington)

Quotation

Bryan D. Gant, Eric Grannon, Adam Acosta, The US District Court for the District of Delaware contradicts the Supreme Court precedent regarding patent settlements in the pharmaceutical sector (Chimicles Schwartz Kriner / Donaldson-Smith / Amgen / Teva / Watson / Actavis), 30 November 2020, e-Competitions November 2020, Art. N° 98432

Visites 65

All issues

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