A Nov. 30 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, In re: Sensipar Antitrust Litigation, contradicts controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent and, if followed, could have significant implications for patent settlements well outside the pharmaceutical context in which it arises.  Under the 2013 Supreme Court decision Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc.,  a routine compromise of a damages claim in connection with a patent settlement should not raise antitrust concerns. Yet under Sensipar, the hundreds or thousands of patent settlements that involve such compromises might now be recast by aggressive plaintiffs as reverse-payment settlements subject to antitrust litigation, regardless of the industry. The district court's decision is wrong, potentially
The US District Court for the District of Delaware contradicts the Supreme Court precedent regarding patent settlements in the pharmaceutical sector (Chimicles Schwartz Kriner / Donaldson-Smith / Amgen / Teva / Watson / Actavis)
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.