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)

Buhart, Jacques

Previous article The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismisses allegations of hub-and-spoke conspiracy against 5 pharmaceutical companies in the market for narcolepsy drugs (Apotex / Cephalon) Next article The US FTC files an amicus brief before the Court of Appeals explaining that commitment not to compete raises the same antitrust concerns as the reverse-payment patent settlements (King Drug / SmithKlineBeecham)

28 Apr 2014

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)

KEYWORDS

Reference

US FTC, King Drug / SmithKlineBeecham, Case 14-1243, 28 April 2014

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

Jacques Buhart
McDermott Will & Emery (Paris)

France 120 contributions 61650 visits

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 71