The US District Court for the District of New Jersey issues formalistic ruling on reverse-payment settlements after ’Actavis’ (GSK / Teva)

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 drug firms paid generics to delay entering the market could violate the antitrust laws, but left open issues such as what constituted a payment. In In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 282755 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014), Judge Walls offered a narrow, formalistic ruling on this question. Facts The case involved GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s (GSK)’s Lamictal tablets and chewables, which treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, and which boasted sales exceeding $2 billion per year. Lamictal,

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

Citation

Michael A. Carrier, The US District Court for the District of New Jersey issues formalistic ruling on reverse-payment settlements after ’Actavis’ (GSK / Teva), 24 janvier 2014, e-Competitions January 2014, Art. N° 63588

Visites 382

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues