The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds that a firm which has engaged in fraud on the patent office cannot stand on its patent to defend reverse payment antitrust claims (Cephalon)

Last year in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pharmaceutical “reverse payment” settlements in Hatch-Waxman Act “Paragraph 4” patent litigation are subject to challenge, departing from the rule that most Circuits had adopted. FTC v. Actavis, 133 S.Ct. 2223 (2013). In these cases, patent owners are compelled to bring patent infringement actions against generic drug makers who file a notice with the FDA indicating their view that any existing patents protecting the branded drug are invalid. Branded and generic litigants sometimes resolve these cases through a settlement that involves a “reverse payment” from the branded company patent holder to the generic manufacturer, together with timed negotiated entry, allowing the generic drug maker to begin selling the generic product

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

  • Sheppard Mullin (San Francisco)
  • Paul Hastings (Washington)

Quotation

Michael Cohen, Katie Wood, The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania holds that a firm which has engaged in fraud on the patent office cannot stand on its patent to defend reverse payment antitrust claims (Cephalon), 15 April 2015, e-Competitions Bulletin Patents Settlements, Art. N° 74654

Visites 176

All issues

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