Search results - Concurrences

12 May 2021 B

Barriers to entry in the digital market: An overview of EU and national case law

Ania Thiemann, Antonio Neto • Barriers to entry in the digital market

Before firms can compete in a market, they have to be able to enter it. Many if not most markets present at least some obstacles that make it more difficult for a firm to enter. Although scholars have been debating how to define ’barriers to entry’ for decades, starting with Joe Bain in the late (...)

10 May 2021 B

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal upholds an infringement decision for pay-for-delay pharmaceutical deals (GlaxoSmithKline)

UK Competition Authority • June 2021

CAT upholds infringement decision for pay for delay pharma deals* The Competition Appeal Tribunal has upheld the CMA decision that GlaxoSmithKline and some generic suppliers of the anti-depressant paroxetine broke competition law. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) has, however, (...)

5 May 2021 B

Pay for delay agreements: An overview of EU and US Case Law

Walid Chaiehloudj • Pay-for-delay agreements

Are pay-for-delay agreements still a hot topic for competition authorities and courts? The answer, albeit reckless, is definitely “yes”. As the years go by, competition authorities still seem determined to fight these agreements, which are sometimes referred to as “patent settlements” or “reverse (...)

13 Apr 2021 B

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the FTC’s ruling regarding an unlawful pay-for-delay agreement in the pharmaceutical sector (Endo / Impax)

William Lavery, Christine Ryu-Naya, Christopher Wilson • March 2021

On April 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC” or “Commission”) ruling that the “reverse-payment” settlement agreement between Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”) and Impax Laboratories LLC (“Impax”) violated federal antitrust laws. The (...)

13 Apr 2021 B

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the FTC’s decision in the first fully litigated reverse payment decision against generic pharmaceutical companies (Endo / Impax)

Kenneth Reinker, Bruce Hoffman, Kathleen W. Bradish, George S. Cary • June 2021

On April 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Federal Trade Commission’s decision that Impax Laboratories entered an anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals. This case was the FTC’s first fully litigated reverse payment case since the (...)

13 Apr 2021 B

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the FTC’s decision that two pharmaceutical companies entered an anticompetitive reverse payment settlement (Endo / Impax)

Kenneth Reinker, Bruce Hoffman, Kathleen W. Bradish, George S. Cary • June 2021

On April 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Federal Trade Commission’s decision that Impax Laboratories entered an anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals. This case was the FTC’s first fully litigated reverse payment case since the (...)

13 Apr 2021 B

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rules that showing the reverse payment settlement eliminated the possibility of an earlier generic entry is enough to infer anticompetitive effect (Endo / Impax)

Sarah A. Geers, Jonathan Berman, Larissa Bergin, Rosanna McCalips, Ryan C. Thomas • June 2021

In Short The Background: In the Supreme Court’s landmark 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, the Court determined that large payments by branded drugmakers to potential generic entrants to settle patent disputes could be anticompetitive. It instructed district courts to apply the "rule of reason" (...)

13 Apr 2021 B

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the FTC’s ruling that the generic drug maker engaged in an anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlement with a brand manufacturer (Endo / Impax)

Tamara Freilich • Preview

On April 13, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s ruling that generic drug maker Impact Laboratories, LLC (now owned by Amneal Pharmaceuticals) engaged in an anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlement with brand manufacturer Endo (...)

25 Mar 2021 R

Pay for delay: The Court of Justice of the European Union upholds the judgments of the General Court of the European Union imposing fines on a pharmaceutical company and four generic companies for entering into a deferred entry agreement concerning the antidepressant citalopram (Lundbeck)

Alain Ronzano • N° 2-2021

On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the Union delivered its judgment inPay for Delay case C-591/16 (Lundbeck v European Commission)as well as in the five related cases: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Ranbaxy (UK)/Commission (C-586/16) Generics (UK) v Commission (C-588/16) Arrow Group (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of several manufacturers of medicines involved in an agreement seeking to delay the marketing of the generic antidepressant citalopram (Lundbeck)

Peter Citron, Tilman Kuhn, Assimakis Komninos, James Killick, Jérémie Jourdan • March 2021

On 25 March 2021, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") dismissed all the appeals against the European Commission’s decision to fine Lundbeck and several other companies for entering into anti-competitive patent settlement agreements. The judgments largely repeat the position taken by the ECJ (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of several pharmaceutical companies involved in an agreement seeking to delay the marketing of the generic antidepressant citalopram (Lundbeck)

European Court of Justice • March 2021

The Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of a number of manufacturers of medicines involved in an agreement seeking to delay the marketing of the genericantidepressant citalopram* The European Commission had imposed on them fines of almost € 150 million From the late 1970’s, the Danish (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of several manufacturers of medicines and upholds the Commission’s decision regarding a pay-for-delay infringement (Lundbeck)

Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Sebastien Moore, Peter Rowland, Kristien Geeurickx, Agathe Célarié • March 2021

On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) dismissed the appeals by Lundbeck and five producers of generic medicines against the General Court’s (GC) judgments that upheld the Commission’s decision and the fines it had imposed in its first pay-for-delay infringement decision in 2013. (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice confirms the pay-for-delay infringement decision in the pharmaceutical sector (Lundbeck)

Steve Ross • March 2021

On 25 March 2021, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) dismissed all appeals against the 2016 rulings of the General Court which had upheld the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision to fine Lundbeck and four generic pharmaceutical companies (Merck, Alpharma, Arrow and Ranbaxy) for (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice dismisses the appeals of several manufacturers of medicines against the General Court’s judgment upholding the Commission’s pay-for-delay infringement decision (Lundbeck)

Marilena Nteve, Wesley Lepla, Miranda Cole • March 2021

On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) dismissed the appeals by Lundbeck, Merck KGaA (and Generics UK), Arrow, Alpharma (and Xellia) and Ranbaxy, against the General Court’s (“GC”) judgment upholding the European Commission’s (“Commission”) 2013 pay-for-delay (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice dismisses appeals by several manufacturers of medicines regarding pay-for-delay patent settlement agreements (Lundbeck)

Michael Clancy, Samuel Hall, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen • March 2021

On 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed all appeals against the decision of the European Commission (the Commission) to fine Lundbeck and four generic pharmaceutical companies (Alpharma, Arrow, Merck, and Ranbaxy) for concluding “pay-for-delay” patent (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice confirms the General Court’s judgment and Commission’s decision on pharmaceutical pay-for-delay agreements (Lundbeck)

Enzo Marasà, Irene Picciano, Marianna Riedo • June 2021

On March 25, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) ruled on appeal in the Lundbeck case, confirming the previous judgement of the General Court (GC) that upheld the decision of the European Commission (Commission) on pharmaceutical “pay-for-delay” agreements (Case AT.39226 — (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice confirms the decision of the Commission to impose fines on several pharmaceutical companies (Lundbeck)

Elena Wiese, Florian von Schreitter • June 2021

In the much-anticipated Lundbeck case (i.a. C-591/16 P), the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) on 25th March 2021 confirmed the decision of the European Commission (“Commission”) to impose fines on Lundbeck and several generics companies. The case concerns a pay-for-delay agreement dating back to (...)

25 Mar 2021 B

The EU Court of Justice confirms the judgment of the General Court that the pay-for-delay agreements concluded between originator and generics manufacturers were by-object restrictions (Lundbeck)

Donald Slater • June 2021

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") confirmed the judgment of the General Court ("GC") upholding the European Commission’s pay-for-delay decision. The ruling held that the originator and generics manufacturers must be considered potential competitors despite Lundbeck’s process patents, and (...)

25 Jan 2021 B

The US FTC charges two pharmaceutical companies for preventing competition in the national market for oxymorphone (Endo / Impax)

US Federal Trade Commission • January 2021

FTC Again Charges Endo and Impax with Illegally Preventing Competition in U.S. Market for Oxymorphone ER* The FTC is suing Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo International plc, Impax Laboratories, LLC, and Impax’s owner, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that a 2017 agreement between Endo and (...)

26 Nov 2020 R

Pay-for-delay: The European Commission fines two pharmaceutical companies €60.5 million for a pay-for-delay practice (Teva, Cephalon)

Alain Ronzano • N° 1-2021

After perindopril, citalopram and fentanyl, the Commission sanctions a new practice of pay-for-delay. This time it concerns modafinil, a drug used for the treatment of excessive daytime sleepiness, particularly in connection with narcolepsy and marketed under the brand name "Provigil". On (...)

26 Nov 2020 B

The EU Commission fines two pharmaceutical companies for pay-for-delay patent settlement agreement (Teva / Cephalon)

Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen • November 2020

On 26 November 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) brought to an end a long running competition case by finding against Cephalon and Teva on account of a “pay-for-delay” patent settlement agreement involving modafinil, the active substance of a sleeping disorder medicine (see, attached (...)

26 Nov 2020 B

The EU Commission fines pharmaceutical companies for pay-for-delay agreement (Teva / Cephalon)

Duncan Liddell, Steven Vaz • November 2020

On 26 November 2020, the European Commission ("Commission") announced that it had fined the pharmaceutical companies Teva and Cephalon EUR 60.5 million for agreeing to delay for several years the market entry of a cheaper generic version of Cephalon’s drug for sleep disorders, modafinil, after (...)

26 Nov 2020 B

The EU Commission fines two pharmaceutical companies €60.5 million for delaying the entry of cheaper generic medicine for sleep disorders (Teva / Cephalon)

European Commission • November 2020

Antitrust: Commission fines Teva and Cephalon €60.5 million for delaying entry of cheaper generic medicine* The European Commission has fined the pharmaceutical companies Teva and Cephalon €60.5 million for agreeing to delay for several years the market entry of a cheaper generic version of (...)

26 Nov 2020 R

Pay-for-delay: The European Commission fines two pharmaceutical companies €60.5 million for delaying the entry of a generic drug on the market (Teva et Cephalon)

Ludovic Bernardeau • N° 1-2021 • p. 120

On 26 November 2020 and following other similar cases (the cardiovascular drug perindopril, the antidepressant citalopram and the pain reliever fentanyl), the Commission, in the context of a national (United Kingdom) patent dispute, decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice, (...)

6 Nov 2020 B

The UK Supreme Court hands down a judgment in a competition damage litigation and makes key observations on when a judicial decision of the EU courts is binding in other proceedings (Servier)

Elvira Aliende Rodriguez, James Webber, Ozlem Fidanboylu, Susanna Charlwood, Jonathan Swil • November 2020

Holds Findings Made by European Courts Cannot Be Relied on in Different Context in Other Proceedings On November 6, 2020 the U.K. Supreme Court handed down a judgment relating to the Servier U.K. competition damages litigation, in which it made key observations on when a judicial decision of (...)

5 Nov 2020 B

Dominance in the pharmaceutical sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Marion Provost, Mélanie Thill-Tayara • Pharma & Dominance

While pharmaceutical companies are subject to sector-specific regulations, the industry is not exempt from competition law, as exemplified by the numerous investigations that are regularly conducted by competition authorities around the globe and the magnitude of the sanctions that have been (...)

9 Jul 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority fines 3 pharmaceutical companies £2.3 million for anti-competitive agreement in the supply of life-saving drug fludrocortisone and secures £8 million in damages for the National Health Service (Aspen / Amilco / Tiofarma)

UK Competition Authority • July 2020

CMA levies fines of £2.3m and secures £8m for NHS in pharma probe* The CMA has formally concluded that 3 pharmaceutical companies took part in an illegal arrangement in relation to the supply of life-saving medicine. The investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into the supply of (...)

8 Jun 2020 B

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismisses antitrust case challenging patent thicket (Humira)

Michael A. Carrier • June 2020

On June 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendants’ motion to dismiss an antitrust case challenging behavior arising out of a massive collection of patents known as a “patent thicket.” In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, 2020 WL 3051309 (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Kokott proposes to uphold the fine of almost €94 million imposed on a pharmaceutical group in the context of agreements intended to delay the marketing of generic versions of its antidepressant medicinal product citalopram (Lundbeck)

European Court of Justice • June 2020

Advocate General Kokott proposes that the Court of Justice should uphold the fine of almost €94 million imposed on the Lundbeck pharmaceutical group in the context of agreements intended to delay the marketing of generic versions of its antidepressant medicinal product citalopram* The Advocate (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority secures disqualification of pharmaceutical company director for 5 years for breaching competition law (Amit Patel / Auden McKenzie / Amilco)

UK Competition Authority • June 2020

Pharma company director disqualified for competition law breaches* The CMA has secured the disqualification of pharmaceutical company director Amit Patel after he admitted his role in arrangements that broke competition law. Amit Patel has signed undertakings that ban him from holding a (...)

4 Jun 2020 R

Object restriction: Advocate General Kokott calls on the Court of Justice of the European Union to uphold the judgment of the General Court of the European Union imposing a fine of € 94 million on a pharmaceutical company for having concluded a pay for delay agreement with four generic companies (Lundbeck)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2020

On 4 June 2020, Advocate General Juliane Kokott delivered her Opinion in the case of Pay for Delay C-591/16 (Lundbeck v. European Commission).. As might be expected, these conclusions follow on from thejudgment of 30 January 2020 in Case C-307/18 (Generics (UK) and others). in which the Court (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority secures binding competition disqualification undertakings by a director involved in two separate anticompetitive arrangements relating to the supply of pharmaceuticals (Amit Patel / Auden McKenzie / Amilco)

Peter Willis, Patricia Wing • June 2020

On 4 June 2020, the Competition Markets Authority (“CMA”) announced that it had secured binding competition disqualification undertakings by Mr Amit Patel, not to act as a director of any UK company for five years from 13 July 2020, in consequence of his involvement in two separate (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Antitrust in the US Pharmaceutical Sector

Michael A. Carrier

583 Antitrust in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of US Case Law m iChAel A. C Arrier rutgers University mcarrier@camden.rutgers.edu i. introduction the issues presented by pharmaceutical antitrust law are vital to national economies and patients' lives. they implicate patent law, (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Dominance in the Pharmaceutical Sector

Marion Provost, Mélanie Thill-Tayara

539 Dominance in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of EU and National Case Law m élAnie t hill -t A yArA, m Arion P roVost * Dechert (Paris) melanie.thill-tayara@dechert.com marion.provost@dechert.com I. Introduction The pharmaceutical sector stands out as being regularly under the scrutiny (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Healthcare & Pharma
Competition in the Pharmaceutical Sector

Margaret Kyle

Healthcare & Pharma 525 Competition in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of EU and National Case Law m Arg Aret k yle mines Paristech (Paris) margaret.kyle@mines-paristech.fr i. introduction the pharmaceutical sector regularly attracts the attention of competition authorities, who note (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Pay for delay: The Court of Justice of the European Union sets out the conditions under which an pay for delay agreement constitutes a restriction of competition by object or effect and how it can be analyzed as an abuse of a dominant position (Generics - UK)

Alain Ronzano • N° 2-2020

Just eight days after General Counsel Juliane Kokott presented her findings... in Case C-307/18 (Generics (UK) and Others), the Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore delivered its judgment in record time on 30 January 2020 in the same case.. Under the terms of this judgment - (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority welcomes the EU Court of Justice’s ruling in a pay-for-delay case (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

UK Competition Authority • January 2020

CMA welcomes EU Court ruling in pay-for-delay drug case* The CMA welcomes a ruling from the EU Court of Justice in relation to its case that drug companies supplying an antidepressant called paroxetine broke the law. The ruling, released today, follows appeals from GlaxoSmithKline and other (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the criteria for the pay-for-delay agreements in the pharmaceutical sector (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Dafni Katrana, Ruth Allen • January 2020

On 30 January 2020 the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) clarified for the first time the criteria governing whether so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements entered into between originator and generic pharmaceutical companies fall foul of EU competition law rules. Such agreements are a form of patent (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice rules that pay-for-delay patent settlements may restrict competition by object (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Peter L’Ecluse • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) handed down its judgment in Case C-307/18, Generics (UK) and Others. This case marks the first time the ECJ has ruled on patent settlement agree- ments between originator pharmaceutical companies and generic producers. (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies for the first time when patent settlement agreements that restrict a generic pharmaceutical company’s ability to enter the market infringe the EU antitrust rules (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Catriona Hatton, Paul Lugard, Daniel Vasbeck • January 2020

In a major judgment handed down on 30 January 2020 in Generics (UK) and Others, the EU Court of Justice (the Court) – the EU’s highest court – clarified for the first time the analytical framework for assessing when patent settlement agreements that restrict a generic pharmaceutical company’s (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Pay-for-delay: The Court of Justice of the European Union condemns an originator laboratory for an abuse of its dominant position due to the cumulative effect of reverse-payment settlements concluded with generic drug manufacturers (Generics - UK)

Anne Wachsmann, Nicolas Zacharie • N° 2-2020 • pp. 83-85

In a judgment of 30 January 2020 handed down on a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal of the United Kingdom, the Court of Justice of the European [Union Court of Justice] provides interesting clarifications with regard to both the concept of anti-competitive (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the conditions under which pay-for-delay agreements preventing generic versions of a patented medicine from entering the market or delaying such entry may constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ or ‘by effect” as well as an abuse of dominant position (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Amélie Lamarcq, Sandrine Mathieu • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) ruled on the applicability of competition law to settlement agreements between a holder of a pharmaceutical patent and manufacturers of generic medicines. In a judgment issued only a week after Advocate General Kokott delivered her (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Restriction by object: The Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the conditions for a pay-for-delay agreement to be qualified as a restriction of competition by object following a preliminary ruling request of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Generics - UK, GlaxoSmithKline, Xellia Pharmaceuticals...)

Michel Debroux • N° 2-2020 • pp. 72-74

The much-awaited judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice of 30 January in response to the questions referred by the Competition Appeal Tribunal [CAT] is already seen, together with thejudgment of 2 April 2020 in Case C-228/18 (Budapest Bank), as bringing, in a very timely (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the conditions for a pay-for-delay agreement to be qualified as a restriction of competition by object (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Donald Slater • January 2020

On 30 January 2020 (case C-307/18), the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a preliminary ruling that sheds more light on the circumstances in which an agreement settling a patent dispute between a pharmaceutical patent holder and a company intending to launch a competing generic product (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies that when patent settlement agreements restrict a generic pharmaceutical company’s ability to enter the market they infringe EU antitrust rules (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Anne Federle, Pauline Van Sande • January 2020

Article summary: Settlement Agreements Can Be Anti-Competitive Only If The Involved Companies Are (At Least) Potential Competitors. A Careful Examination Must Determine Whether A Generic Manufacturer Would Have Entered Into The Market Without A "Pay Per Delay" Agreement. The Classification Of (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice provides guidance on patent settlements between manufacturers of the originator and generic medicines (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Lesley Hannah, Ann-Christin Richter • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the European Court of Justice released its judgment relating to a patent dispute between the pharmaceutical patent-holder, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and a generic drug maker concluding that originators and generics are in fact “potential competitors” if the generic drugmaker has (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice renders a preliminary ruling stating that a dispute between an originator and a generics manufacturer constitutes evidence that they are potential competitors (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Stamatis Drakakakis, Argyrios Papaefthymiou, Ellie Gavriilidou • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU rendered its preliminary ruling in Case C-307/18 – Generics (UK) and Others v CMA (Paroxetine). The case originated in a preliminary reference made by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) relating to an appeal against a decision of the UK (...)

22 Jan 2020 R

Pay for delay: Advocate General Kokott invites the Court to rule that an Pay for Delay agreement may constitute a restriction of competition by object or effect and that its conclusion may be analysed as an abuse of a dominant position (Generics - UK)

Alain Ronzano • N° 2-2020

Taking the view that uncertainty as to the validity of a patent on a medicinal product or as to the infringing nature of its generic does not preclude the patent holder and the generic manufacturer from being regarded as potential competitors, Advocate General Kokott invites the Court to rule (...)

16 Dec 2019 R

USA: Eighty-two academics file an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Federal Trade Commission’s position in a pay-for-delay case (Impax Laboratories)

Walid Chaiehloudj • N° 1-2020 • p. 202

The Impax case that we have recently discussed in these columns has bounced back in the courts (Concurrences No. 2-2019, Art. No. 90540, p. 208). The pharmaceutical company seeks to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) assessment that the agreements entered into by the company were (...)

21 Nov 2019 B

Dominance in the pharmaceutical sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Marion Provost • Pharma & Dominance

The pharmaceutical sector stands out as being regularly under the scrutiny of competition authorities throughout Europe and has continued to be a key enforcement priority over the past 18 months, with notable developments in pay-for-delay and excessive pricing cases, as well as on market (...)

total	206
total_found	206
time	0.161

Your search returned 206 results Pay-for-Delay

Debug

Métas associées