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)

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

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

Auteurs

  • White & Case (New York)
  • White & Case (Washington)
  • White & Case (Washington)

Citation

Bryan D. Gant, Eric Grannon, Adam Acosta, 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), 30 novembre 2020, e-Competitions November 2020, Art. N° 98432

Visites 63

Tous les numéros

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