A US appellate panel questions whether reverse payments need to be in cash to put the patent settlement under the scrutiny of antitrust laws (GlaxoSmithKline)

Reverse payments can be non-cash according to appellate judges* On 19 November 2014 in a hearing regarding the possible reopening of a lawsuit over whether GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) unfairly extended the monopoly on its drug Lamictal, an appellate panel of the Third Circuit suggested that reverse payments may be something other than cash. The issue on appeal has its roots in the US Supreme Court decision in the Actavis case where it was held that a large and unjustified payment to a generic rival

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

  • DLA Piper Weiss-Tessbach (Vienna)

Quotation

Nicole Daniel, A US appellate panel questions whether reverse payments need to be in cash to put the patent settlement under the scrutiny of antitrust laws (GlaxoSmithKline), 19 October 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector, Art. N° 72170

Visites 112

All issues

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