Michael A. Carrier

On August 21, 2017, the Third Circuit overturned a decision that had applied excessive pleading standards against plaintiffs challenging reverse-payment settlements. Writing for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Smith held that, in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), courts should (...)

On October 6, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its long-awaited report on patent assertion entities (PAEs). Sometimes called “patent trolls,” these actors have elicited fierce debate, with critics lamenting their ability to demand ransom money and hold up an industry while (...)

On September 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a misguided ruling granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ignoring the regulatory framework relevant to “product hopping,” by which a drug company switches from one version of a drug to another, sometimes (...)

On February 22, 2016, in the second federal appellate drug patent settlement ruling since the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated a lower court decision granting a motion to dismiss for defendants. Writing (...)

On June 26, 2015, in the first federal appellate drug patent settlement ruling since the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a lower court decision granting a motion to dismiss for defendants. Writing for (...)

On May 7, 2015, in the first appellate reverse-payment ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), the California Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision granting summary judgment for defendants. On behalf of all seven Justices, Justice (...)

This article has been nominated for the 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On March 2, 2015, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland offered a wide-ranging analysis of antitrust claims against the (...)

On January 28, 2015, Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendants’ summary judgment motions, sending the second reverse-payment-settlement case to trial. In King Drug Company of Florence v. Cephalon, 2015 WL 356913 (E.D. Pa. Jan. (...)

On September 4, 2014, Judge William Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a concerning ruling on drug patent settlements. In In re Loestrin 24 FE Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 4368924 (D.R.I., Sept. 4, 2014), Judge Smith misapplied the Supreme Court’s landmark (...)

On August 8, 2014, in O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that the NCAA violated the antitrust laws by enacting rules that prevented student-athletes from being paid for the use (...)

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 (...)

On October 3, 2013, Judge James F. Holderman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois offered the second analysis by a U.S. court of an appropriate royalty that a patentee could obtain after promising to license its patent on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) (...)

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time examined the antitrust legality of agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay generics to delay entering the market. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion for five Justices, concluding that these (...)

On April 25, 2013, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington offered the first analysis by a U.S. court of an appropriate royalty that a patentee could obtain after promising to license its patent on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms. (...)