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. [1] Under the 2013 Supreme Court decision Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc., [2] 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
Share on
|
|
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.
