On January 24, 2014, Judge William Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued one of the first rulings interpreting the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). The Court in Actavis made clear that settlements by which brand-name drug firms paid generics to delay entering the market could violate the antitrust laws, but left open issues such as what constituted a payment. In In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 282755 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014), Judge Walls offered a narrow, formalistic ruling on this question. Facts The case involved GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s (GSK)’s Lamictal tablets and chewables, which treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, and which boasted sales exceeding $2 billion per year. Lamictal,
Share on
|
|
The US District Court for the District of New Jersey issues formalistic ruling on reverse-payment settlements after ’Actavis’ (GlaxoSmithKline / Teva)
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.
