The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejects the FTC’s approach to a pay-for-delay settlement between a brand name and generic drug companies as an unlawful agreement not to compete (Solvay / Watson / Paddock)

Eleventh Circuit Rejects FTC’s Approach to Pay-for-Delay Settlements as “Turducken Task”* The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta rejected on April 25, 2012 the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to a patent litigation settlement between brand name and generic drug companies as an unlawful agreement not to compete in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The FTC brought the case in 2009 against Solvay Pharmaceuticals and generic manufacturers Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceutical, and Paddock Laboratories over a “pay for delay” or “reverse payment” patent infringement settlement agreement related to patents for AndroGel—a testosterone replacement drug often used by men whose bodies do not produce normal levels of testosterone. In 2010, the federal district court in Atlanta

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

  • Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)

Quotation

Jeffrey May, The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejects the FTC’s approach to a pay-for-delay settlement between a brand name and generic drug companies as an unlawful agreement not to compete (Solvay / Watson / Paddock), 25 April 2012, e-Competitions Pay-for-delay agreements, Art. N° 46067

Visites 552

All issues

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