A U.S. District Court holds that “No-authorised generic” agreements are not “Reverse Payments” (Lamictal litigation)

Important U.S. Developments Relating to “Reverse Payment” Patent Settlements* There have been two key recent developments in the U.S. relating to the legal dispute over patent settlements including so-called “reverse payments.” First, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review an Eleventh Circuit decision dismissing a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenging a patent settlement. Second, a district court in New Jersey issued the first decision to consider the legal treatment of a commitment by a brand name manufacturer to a generic company not to license any other generic companies the right to sell an authorized generic. The Supreme Court’s decision to weigh into the “reverse payment” dispute is a pivotal moment in the development of the U.S. law in this area, and

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

  • Gibson Dunn (New York)

Quotation

Eric Stock, A U.S. District Court holds that “No-authorised generic” agreements are not “Reverse Payments” (Lamictal litigation), 6 December 2012, e-Competitions Bulletin Commitment Decisions, Art. N° 50299

Visites 262

All issues

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