The US FTC files an amicus brief arguing that pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements with ’no authorized generic’ provisions are anticompetitive (GSK / Louisiana Wholesale Drug)

EXTENDING K-DUR’S REACH? FTC FILES AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS CONTAINING “NO-AG” PROVISIONS ARE ANTICOMPETITIVE* The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amicus brief on October 9 in U.S. District Court (D.N.J.). In it, the FTC spells out its arguments why, as part of a pharmaceutical patent litigation settlement agreement, a branded company’s promise not to launch an authorized generic (AG) version of its product during the generic firm’s 180-day marketing exclusivity period is a "pay-for-delay" agreement in violation of the antitrust laws, if the agreement also contains the generic’s promise to defer its entry. The FTC argues that

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 (Washington)

Quotation

Jeffrey Brennan, The US FTC files an amicus brief arguing that pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements with ’no authorized generic’ provisions are anticompetitive (GSK / Louisiana Wholesale Drug), 5 October 2012, e-Competitions Pay-for-delay agreements, Art. N° 93426

Visites 43

All issues

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