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