The US FTC appeals the US District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that a “no authorized generic” agreement cannot be an antitrust violation (King Drug / SmithKlineBeecham)

On May 2, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit requesting that the court reverse the district court’s decision in Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, finding that a “no authorized generic” agreement between branded 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

  • McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)

Quotation

Jacques Buhart, The US FTC appeals the US District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that a “no authorized generic” agreement cannot be an antitrust violation (King Drug / SmithKlineBeecham), 28 April 2014, e-Competitions Pay-for-delay agreements, Art. N° 93101

Visites 56

All issues

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