No AA IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
|
|
- Camron Carter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 No AA IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION and UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. On Petition for Review from a Final Order of the Federal Trade Commission BRIEF OF WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS AND SEEKING REVERSAL OF THE ORDER BELOW Daniel J. Popeo David Price WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION 2009 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C (202) Counsel for amicus curiae June 9, 2004
2 Schering-Plough Corp. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission No AA CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) states that it is not a corporation and does not have any parent corporation. Furthermore, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule , WLF hereby certifies that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: Bradley Scott Albert, Esq. American Home Products Corporation Andrx Corporation Sheila F. Anthony, former FTC Commissioner Yaa Apori, Esq. Arnold & Porter LLP Diane E. Bieri, Esq. Linda B. Blumenreich, Esq. Karen G. Bokat, Esq. Peter J. Carney, Esq. Hon. D. Michael Chappell Gustav P. Chiarello, Esq. Susan A. Creighton, Esq. Jaime M. Crowe, Esq. Christopher M. Curran, Esq. C 1 of 4
3 Schering-Plough Corp. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission No AA Laurie Webb Daniel, Esq. Daniel P. Ducore, Esq. Philip M. Eisenstat, Esq. ESI-Lederle, Inc. Federal Trade Commission Richard A. Feinstein, Esq. Garry R. Gibbs, Esq. J. Mark Gidley, Esq. Andrew Ginsburg, Esq. Gregg A. Hand, Esq. Pamela Jones Harbour, FTC Commissioner Andrew Heimert, Esq. Elizabeth R. Hilder, Esq. Cathy A. Hoffman, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP Lisa K. Hsiao, Esq. Michael B. Kades, Esq. Marilyn E. Kerst, Esq. Key Pharmaceuticals C 2 of 4
4 Schering-Plough Corp. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission No AA Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vivian S. Kuo, Esq. Joseph P. Lavelle, Esq. Thomas B. Leary, FTC Commissioner Charles A. Loughlin, Esq. Rajeev K. Malik, Esq. Markus H. Meier, Esq. Suzanne T. Michel, Esq. Robin Moore, Esq. Judith A. Moreland, Esq. Timothy J. Muris, FTC Chairman Ernest A. Nagata, Esq. John W. Nields, Jr., Esq. Paul J. Nolan, Esq. Martha Oppenheim, Esq. Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP Melvin H. Orlans, Esq. David M. Orta, Esq. Donna E. Patterson, Esq. Robert D. Paul, Esq. C 3 of 4
5 Schering-Plough Corp. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission No AA David R. Pender, Esq. Jason C. Raofield, Esq. Christina M. Sarris, Esq. Schering Corporation Schering-Plough Corporation Marc G. Schildkraut, Esq. Gary H. Schorr, Esq. Laura S. Shores, Esq. Seth Silber, Esq. Karan Singh, Esq. Michael N. Sohn, Esq. Clifton Smith Orson Swindle, FTC Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson, FTC Commissioner Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. Steve Vieux, Esq. Jonathan A. Wasserman, Esq. White & Case LLP Winston & Strawn Wyeth C 4 of 4
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT I. THE COMMISSION S HOSTILITY TO PATENT SETTLEMENTS OF THE KIND PRESENTED HERE IS UNFOUNDED II. III. THE COMMISSION ERRED BY REFUSING TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF THE PATENT RIGHTS AT ISSUE THE COMMISSION S APPROACH, IF UPHELD, WOULD DETER SETTLEMENTS OF PATENT DISPUTES, THUS BRINGING ANTICOMPETITIVE CONSEQUENCES CONCLUSION i
7 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, 289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003) , Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003) Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc., 72 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1996) Monsanto v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003) , 6, 7, 8, 12 Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 86 S. Ct. 347 (1965) Statutes Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 ( Hatch-Waxman Act ), Pub. L. No , 98 Stat (1984) , 5, 9 Other Authorities Address by R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, before the American Intellectual Property Association, Jan. 24, Daniel A. Crane, Exit Payments in Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuits: Antitrust Rules and Economic Implications, 54 Fla. L. Rev. 747 (2002) , 9, 11 ii
8 Federal Trade Commission, Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study (2002) , 8 U.S. Const., art. I, 8 cl iii
9 INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is a nonprofit public interest law and policy center based in Washington, D.C., with supporters nationwide. Since its founding in 1977, WLF has engaged in litigation and advocacy to defend and promote individual rights and a limited and accountable government, including in the area of patients interests. For example, WLF successfully challenged the constitutionality of Food and Drug Administration restrictions on the ability of doctors and patients to receive truthful information about off-label uses of FDAapproved medicines. See Washington Legal Found. v. Friedman, 13 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D. D.C. 1998), appeal dism d, 202 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2000). WLF s Legal Studies Division frequently publishes papers on legal policy issues in the areas of health care, intellectual property, and antitrust, recently including Scott P. Perlman and Lily Fu Swenson, Avoiding Collisions at the Intersection of Antitrust and Intellectual Property Laws (2003). WLF is submitting this brief because it is concerned that the Commission s ruling would have serious deleterious effects on the settlement of patent disputes and, ultimately, on the value of patent protection and on incentives for pioneer drug firms and generic drug firms to bring products to market. WLF also filed a brief in support of the parties to the patent settlement and against the antitrust 1
10 challenge before the Federal Trade Commission in the proceedings below and in this Court in Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003). INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, popularly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, Pub. L. No , 98 Stat (1984), to allow a prospective manufacturer of a generic version of a drug already on the market a pioneer drug to file an abbreviated application with the Food and Drug Administration. See 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(1). Under the Hatch- Waxman Act, this abbreviated application, an Abbreviated New Drug Application ( ANDA ), can rely in certain respects on the FDA s prior approval of the pioneer drug for safety and effectiveness. The Hatch-Waxman Act does not curtail any patent rights of the maker of the pioneer drug, and indeed, the Act requires the ANDA to certify that the proposed generic drug would not infringe any patent listed with the FDA as covering the pioneer drug. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii). Congress intended for the Act to eliminate... impediments to the introduction of generic drugs to the market. Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 344 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003). In doing so, Congress established balanced procedures to protect the ability of pioneer firms to assert 2
11 their intellectual property rights as well as the ability of potential generic entrants to contest those rights. In the present case, the Federal Trade Commission is asserting antitrust claims against a pioneer firm (Schering-Plough) and a generic firm (Upsher-Smith Laboratories) based on a garden-variety settlement of a patent dispute. The Commission s claims are based on its view that payments from a pioneer to a generic entrant show anticompetitive intent in and of themselves a view that is commercially unrealistic and counter to the law of this Circuit. The Commission s ruling is further undermined by its insistence that the supposedly sham nature of the firms patent settlement can be determined without any reference at all to the strength or weakness of the underlying patent claims. Further, as a matter of policy, the Commission s approach should be rejected because it would burden pioneer firms, generic firms, and the federal courts by creating new obstacles to settlement of patent disputes, thereby chilling both new drug innovation and new generic entry. 1 1 Except where otherwise noted, the legal arguments presented here also apply to the Commission s action based on the settlement between Schering-Plough and American Home Products. That action is before this Court in the present proceeding with respect to Schering-Plough. American Home Products was charged by the Commission s complaint counsel, but settled with the Commission prior to trial in April See Opinion at 5. 3
12 ARGUMENT I. THE COMMISSION S HOSTILITY TO PATENT SETTLEMENTS OF THE KIND PRESENTED HERE IS UNFOUNDED The Commission employs the derisive term reverse payment to describe a payment in a patent settlement from a pioneering company to a generic entrant, on the theory that such payments are exceptional. See Opinion of the Commission, In the Matter of Schering-Plough Corp., et al. (hereinafter Opinion ) at 5 & n.9. The Commission s own staff study of the issue, however, found that such payments are, in fact, the norm. Of twenty settlement agreements considered by the study, nine of the settlements or 45% of the total involved payments from the pioneer company to the first generic applicant. See Federal Trade Commission, Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration: An FTC Study 31 (2002) (hereinafter FTC Study). 2 Seven of the agreements, or 35% of the total, involved payments from the generic to the pioneer. See id. at 29. (Of the remaining settlements, one provided for a royalty-free license to the generic; two were supply agreements under which the generic would relabel and resell the drug manufactured by the pioneer; and two were classified as other. See id. at 28, 30.) 2 Available for download at 4
13 Payments from the pioneer firm to a generic firm can be more neutrally and more descriptively termed pioneer payments. The Commission concludes, in essence, that settlements involving pioneer payments are presumptively unlawful because the parties could have entered into a different settlement that would have allowed earlier entry by the generic and thus more competition. Absent proof of other offsetting consideration, it is logical to conclude that the quid pro quo for the payment was an agreement by the generic to defer entry beyond the date that represents an otherwise reasonable litigation compromise. Opinion at 26. The Commission thus assumes that any reasonable litigation compromise would take the form of a cashless settlement based purely on changing the date of entry. This view is a construct of the Commission s imagination, and that of its academic expert, Professor Timothy J. Bresnahan. The commercial reality, as illustrated by the above findings of the Commission s own staff, is that payments to the generic entrant are routine and may be necessary for settlement. They are amply justifiable by economic factors apart from unlawful anti-competitive intent, as this Court has noted. Under the process established by the Hatch-Waxman Act, the pioneer asserts its patent claims at a point when the generic firm s product exists only on paper, and when the generic firm may have only a very limited investment at risk; the generic firm s investments in marketing, manufacturing operations, and the like for the generic drug are still in the future. The pioneer, of 5
14 course, is in the opposite situation. Given the asymmetries of risk and large profits at stake, even a patentee confident in the validity of its patent might pay a potential infringer a substantial sum in settlement. Valley Drug, 344 F.3d at See also Daniel A. Crane, Exit Payments in Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuits: Antitrust Rules and Economic Implications, 54 Fla. L. Rev. 747, (2002). 3 The Commission claims that it is not adopting a per se rule against pioneer payments, but it accomplishes much the same result by shifting the burden of proof in its own favor. Under the Commission s ruling, the defendant drug companies had the burden to show either that the settlement agreement was procompetitive or that the payments were independently justified by the value of certain crosslicenses. See Opinion at 6, 29, 36, This burden-shifting is improper. The question of whether settlement agreements are procompetitive is not an affirmative defense; it is an element of the Commission s cause of action. Rule of reason analysis requires the plaintiff to prove (1) an anticompetitive effect of the defendant s conduct on the relevant market, and (2) that the conduct has no procompetitive benefit or justification. 3 Indeed, it appears highly likely that the patent dispute between Schering-Plough and American Home Products would not have settled if the parties could only adjust the date of entry and did not have the option of a payment from the pioneer to the generic. According to the Commission s own findings, the generic entry date of January 1, 2004, in that settlement was apparently non-negotiable. Opinion at 82. 6
15 Levine v. Central Florida Medical Affiliates, Inc., 72 F.3d 1538, 1551 (11th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). The fact that a regulator or an academic observer can imagine an alternative agreement that might yield earlier entry does not amount to an antitrust cause of action. A patent is, by design and by definition, a grant of a temporary monopoly. The lawful exercise of that monopoly privilege may well involve excluding others and may well generate supra-competitive profits, as this Court has observed: [A] patentee can choose to exclude everyone from producing the patented article... or grant exclusive territorial licenses carving up the United States among its licensees.... Within reason, patentees can also subdivide markets in ways other than territorial, such as by customer class.... Such arrangements undoubtedly tend to result in lower production and higher prices of the patented article than if competition were unrestrained, but these anticompetitive tendencies do not render them in violation of the Sherman Act. Valley Drug, 344 F.3d at 1305 (citations omitted). Here, the pioneer firm had an unquestioned right to litigate its patent claims fully rather than settle. Had it done so and won, it would have retained its monopoly for an additional five years beyond the entry date that the settlement actually provided that is, through the patent expiration date of September 6, 2006, not the agreement s date of September (Had the pioneer firm litigated and lost, it would still have retained exclusivity as a practical matter during the 7
16 pendency of district court proceedings, at least. 4 ) In this case, as in Valley Drug, the settlement agreement was less restrictive than the terms of the pioneer s presumptively-valid patent. The effect of the Zenith Agreement on the production of Zenith s infringing terazosin product appears to be no broader than the potential exclusionary effect of the... patent, and was actually narrower to the extent it permitted Zenith to market its drug before the... patent expired. 344 F.3d at See also Monsanto v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (a limitation on the use of a patented invention does not represent an antitrust violation where the limitation is within the scope of the patent). In view of this Court s ruling in Valley Drug, in view of the deliberately monopolistic character of the rights created by Congress for patent-holders, and in view of the general policy of the law in favor of settlement of litigation, 5 parties to a patent settlement such as this one should not be subject to antitrust liability if the settlement is within the scope of the patent and if the pioneer has not asserted the claim with knowledge of the patent's infirmity within the meaning of Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 175, 4 The study by the Commission s staff found that in the absence of a settlement, a generic firm facing a patent infringement suit rarely risks entering the market prior to a district court ruling that the patent is either invalid or not infringed. See FTC Study, supra, at Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, 289 F. Supp. 2d 986, 991 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (Posner, J.) and sources cited therein. 8
17 86 S. Ct. 347, 349 (1965) (antitrust liability grounded on knowing assertion of baseless patent claim). 6 II. THE COMMISSION ERRED BY REFUSING TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF THE PATENT RIGHTS AT ISSUE The Commission s ruling holds that it need not consider the strength of the pioneer s patent infringement claim neither the subjective strength of the claim as perceived by the parties at the time they entered into the settlement nor the claim s objective strength. See Opinion at This is puzzling since the gist of the supposed wrongdoing in this case is that the pioneer gave the generic firm excessive consideration to settle the claim in return for a more favorable entry date of the generic product. Assuming that this argument represents an antitrust claim at all which amicus believes it does not, for the reasons set out in part I above it is anyone s guess how the Commission or a court could apply it to a particular settlement without looking at the underlying dispute. 6 It should be noted that the settlement agreement in this case did not forbid the generic firm, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, to waive its 180-day period of exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Rather, Upsher-Smith was free to waive, transfer, or license its 180-day marketing exclusivity. This case is thus distinct from the situation presented in Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896, (6th Cir. 2003). See also Crane, supra, 54 Fla. L. Rev. at
18 The Justice Department s Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust has made the same point: If a patent is valid and infringed, then any competitive entry allowed by a settlement is up to the patent holder. If a patent is invalid or not infringed, then there should be no impediment to competitive entry whatsoever. The problem is that we have no way definitively to know which situation applies without evaluating the underlying IP rights, a task that is outside our core expertise as antitrust enforcers. 7 While assessing those rights may be outside the core expertise of antitrust enforcers, it is a necessary step where enforcers are asserting claims based on excessive consideration and unlawful motive embedded in a facially legitimate patent settlement. III. THE COMMISSION S APPROACH, IF UPHELD, WOULD DETER SETTLEMENTS OF PATENT DISPUTES, THUS BRINGING ANTICOMPETITIVE CONSEQUENCES The Commission states that it is theoretically possible that settlement agreements with pioneer payments can foster competition in limited circumstances. The Commission allows that such an agreement could be procompetitive if it involved payments to a cash-starved generic. Opinion at 13. But 7 Address by R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, before the American Intellectual Property Association, Jan. 24, 2003, at 13. Available for download at Mr. Pate was Acting Assistant Attorney General at the time, and has since received Senate confirmation. 10
19 the Commission s view of competition in the context of patent protection and, derivatively, settlements of patent disputes is untenably narrow in two respects. First, by erecting a new doctrinal barrier to out-of-court settlements of patent disputes, the Commission s approach will force more such disputes to be fully litigated a process that tends to facilitate anticompetitive exchanges of information, as one commentator has noted: [A]ntitrust law generally disfavors information exchange by competitors on the theory that it may facilitate price-fixing or conscious parallelism. The mere exchange of pricing information by competitors may violate the antitrust laws. In patent litigation, all of the patentee s and alleged infringer s pricing, cost, and output level information may be relevant to the calculation of damages, and therefore discoverable in litigation. Thus, a rule curtailing early settlements out of antitrust fears may unwittingly facilitate the very sort of information exchange among competitors that would otherwise be illegal.... [P]rotective orders are often porous and difficult to enforce. Crane, supra, 54 Fla. L. Rev. at Second, vigorous enforcement of patent rights, including the settlement of patent disputes, is itself procompetitive. The Constitution grants Congress the power to secure for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries based on the Framers view that this protection would promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. U.S. Const., art. I, 8 cl. 8. This exclusionary right is designed to allow the patentee to exploit whatever degree of market power it might gain thereby as an incentive to induce 11
20 investment in innovation and the public disclosure of inventions. Valley Drug, 344 F.3d at This incentive for investment is especially procompetitive in the pharmaceutical field, which depends on substantial investments by firms for a flow of new medicines to compete with existing medicines in terms of effectiveness, convenience of administration, reduced side effects, and other factors affecting the patient s quality of life, as well as price. In addition, these new medicines ultimately become part of the stream of competing generic products upon the expiration of their patents (or earlier, if licensed by the pioneer). This Court has recognized the effect of potential antitrust liability on patent enforcement. To hold that an ostensibly reasonable settlement of patent litigation gives rise to per se antitrust liability if it involves any payment by the patentee would obviously chill such settlements, thereby increasing the cost of patent enforcement and decreasing the value of patent protection generally. Valley Drug, 344 F.3d at While the Court in Valley Drug was addressing the question of whether to apply per se analysis to patent settlements with pioneer payments, its observation is equally applicable to the approach of the Commission here, which places a significant burden of proof on the parties to the settlement while eschewing per se analysis in name. Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit, sitting as a district judge, has likewise noted, If... there is nothing suspicious about the 12
21 circumstances of a patent settlement, then to prevent a cloud from being cast over the settlement process a third party should not be permitted to haul the parties to the settlement over the hot coals of antitrust litigation. Asahi Glass Co., 289 F. Supp. 2d at 992. The effect of potential antitrust litigation in chilling good-faith settlement of patent disputes will be greatly magnified by the Commission s fly-specking and second-guessing of the terms of the agreements. Here, the pioneer payment represented a payment for rights to other products that Upsher-Smith was licensing to Schering-Plough. The parties to the settlement presented evidence which the Administrative Law Judge found persuasive that the amount of the payment simply reflected the value of the rights that the pioneer company was acquiring. The Commission nonetheless undertook its own independent evaluation of the pharmaceutical licenses and the parties deliberations and negotiations. Not only did the Commission overrule the Administrative Law Judge, it even hinted that its Complaint Counsel had gone too far by conceding that a value-for-value exchange would absolve the parties of antitrust liability. See Opinion at In the shadow of such uncertainty as to how the Commission or the courts will view a settlement agreement after the fact, it will take nerve for pioneer and generic companies to enter into settlement agreements on any terms. 13
22 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, amicus respectfully urges the Court to reverse and vacate the Commission s order below. Respectfully submitted, Daniel J. Popeo David Price WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION 2009 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C (202) Counsel for amicus curiae June 9,
23 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a) This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 3,119 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by the Rule. This brief complies with the typeface requirement of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2002 with Times New Roman in 14 point. David Price
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of June, 2004, I caused the original and six copies of the foregoing brief to be deposited in the U.S. Mail, firstclass postage pre-paid, addressed to the Clerk of the Court, and I caused two copies to be deposited in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage pre-paid, addressed to each of the following: John D. Graubert Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C John W. Nields Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C Robert D. Paul White & Case LLP 601 Thirteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C I further certify that all parties required to be served have been served. David Price
From PLI s Program New Strategies Arising from the Hatch-Waxman Amendments #4888
From PLI s Program New Strategies Arising from the Hatch-Waxman Amendments #4888 New Strategies Arising From the Hatch-Waxman Amendments Practicing Law Institute Telephone Briefing May 12, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION
More informationPharmaceutical Patent Settlement Cases: Mixed Signals for Settling Patent Litigation
By Margaret J. Simpson Tel: 312 923-2857 Fax: 312 840-7257 E-mail: msimpson@jenner.com The following article originally appeared in the Spring 2004 issue of the Illinois State Bar Association s Antitrust
More informationLOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., et al., Respondents. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., Petitioner, v.
Nos. 12-245, 12-265 In the Supreme Court of the United States MERCK & CO., INC., v. Petitioner, LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., et al., Respondents. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC., Petitioner, v.
More informationPay-for-Delay Settlements: Antitrust Violation or Proper Exercise of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights?
Pay-for-Delay Settlements: Antitrust Violation or Proper Exercise of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights? By Kendyl Hanks, Sarah Jacobson, Kyle Musgrove, and Michael Shen In recent years, there has been a surge
More informationReverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Reverse Payment Settlements In Pharma Industry: Revisited
More informationNo. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioner, v. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, et al.
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, et al. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationStuck in Neutral: The Future of Reverse Payments Agreements in Hatch-Waxman Litigation
Stuck in Neutral: The Future of Reverse Payments Agreements in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Alex E. Korona I. Introduction... 202 II. The Hatch-Waxman Act... 203 III. Settlement Agreements and Reverse Payments...
More informationPharmaceutical Product Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls 1
Pharmaceutical Product Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls 1 The terms product switching, product hopping and line extension are often used to describe the strategy of protecting
More informationPENDING LEGISLATION REGULATING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SETTLEMENTS
PENDING LEGISLATION REGULATING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SETTLEMENTS By Edward W. Correia* A number of bills have been introduced in the United States Congress this year that are intended to eliminate perceived
More informationPAYING FOR DELAY AND THE RULE OF REASON FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V ACTAVIS INC ET AL 1
COMPETITION LAW PAYING FOR DELAY AND THE RULE OF REASON FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V ACTAVIS INC ET AL 1 LIGIA OSEPCIU 2 JUNE 2013 On 17 June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its
More informationIncreased Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements: Recent Cases in E.D. of PA and 2nd Circuit Suggest Change May Be Ahead for Pharma Clients
Increased Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements: Recent Cases in E.D. of PA and 2nd Circuit Suggest Change May Be Ahead for Pharma Clients By Francis P. Newell and Jonathan M. Grossman Special to the
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property
and Intellectual Property July 22, 2016 Rob Kidwell, Member Antitrust Prohibitions vs IP Protections The Challenge Harmonizing U.S. antitrust laws that sanction the illegal use of monopoly/market power
More informationTHE ANTITRUST LEGALITY OF PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS
THE ANTITRUST LEGALITY OF PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS James F. Ponsoldt W. Hennen Ehrenclou I. INTRODUCTION Several federal courts of appeal have recently ruled on the issue of whether
More informationPharmaceutical Pay for Delay Settlements
Pharmaceutical Pay for Delay Settlements UCIP Seminar 12 November 2012 www.morganlewis.com Outline Background Goals of the Hatch-Waxman Act Price Effects of Generic Entry Pay-for-Delay Patent Settlements
More informationA Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play a Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements
A Response to Chief Justice Roberts: Why Antitrust Must Play a Role in the Analysis of Drug Patent Settlements Michael A. Carrier* The Supreme Court s decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. 1 has justly received
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-762 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- LOUISIANA WHOLESALE
More informationWE V E A L L B E E N T H E R E.
Antitrust, Vol. 23, No. 2, Spring 2009. 2009 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-416 In the Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More information15.3a1. Entry-restrictive Agreements; Exclusion or Reverse Payments
Excerpted from Herbert Hovenkamp et al., IP and Antitrust (2013 Supplement) (forthcoming) 15.3a1. Entry-restrictive Agreements; Exclusion or Reverse Payments Insofar as antitrust is concerned, among the
More informationHealth Care Law Monthly
Health Care Law Monthly February 2013 Volume 2013 * Issue No. 2 Contents: Copyright ß 2013 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the Lexis- Nexis group of companies. All rights reserved. HEALTH CARE
More informationEditor s Note. US Antitrust Modernization Commission. By A. Noboa Pagán.
Editor s Note. US Antitrust Modernization Commission. By A. Noboa Pagán. Since 2002, the United States Congress designated an Antitrust Modernization Commission with the task of examining whether or not
More informationCaraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Caraco V. Novo Nordisk: Antitrust Implications Law360,
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE PRESERVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE GENERICS ACT: WILL CONGRESS'S RESPONSE TO REVERSE PAYMENT PATENT SETTLEMENTS ENHANCE COMPETITION IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL
More informationNo DD IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-12729-DD IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM
More informationAntitrust/Intellectual Property Interface Under U.S. Law
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Antitrust/Intellectual Property Interface Under U.S.
More informationPharmaceutical Patent Litigation Settlements: Implications for Competition and Innovation
: Implications for Competition and Innovation John R. Thomas Visiting Scholar January 27, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service 7-5700
More informationThe EU Sector Inquiry: Implications for Patent Litigation and Settlements
The EU Sector Inquiry: Implications for Patent Litigation and Settlements Sean-Paul Brankin Crowell & Moring February 17, 2009 1 Issues from the Preliminary Report Market definition Vexatious litigation
More informationIntersection of Patent Infringement and Antitrust Liability in Abbreviated New Drug Application Litigation, The
Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 2014 Issue 1 Article 5 2014 Intersection of Patent Infringement and Antitrust Liability in Abbreviated New Drug Application Litigation, The Kevin E. Noonan Follow this
More informationREVERSE PAYMENTS: WHEN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CAN ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF UNDERLYING PATENTS
REVERSE PAYMENTS: WHEN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CAN ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF UNDERLYING PATENTS INTRODUCTION Settlements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies that delay generic entry
More informationFTC v. Actavis, Inc.: When Is the Rule of Reason Not the Rule of Reason?
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 6 2014 FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: When Is the Rule of Reason Not the Rule of Reason? Thomas F. Cotter Follow this and additional works
More informationAntitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector
September 2009 (Release 2) Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector Aidan Synnott & William Michael Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More information15 Hous. J. Health L. & Policy 281 Copyright 2015 Tracey Toll Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy
15 Hous. J. Health L. & Policy 281 Copyright 2015 Tracey Toll Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy PHARMACEUTICAL REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND A PROPOSAL FOR CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-844 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES, LTD., et al., Petitioners, v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationON NOVEMBER 6, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals
21 Biotechnology Law Report 13 Number 1 (February 2002) Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Brief Analysis of Recent Pharmaceutical/IP Decisions DAVID A. BALTO AMERICAN BIOSCIENCE, INC. V. THOMPSON 269 F.3D1077, 2001
More informationIn re Cardizem & Valley Drug Co.: The Hatch- Waxman Act, Anticompetitive Action, and Regulatory Reform
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 20 January 2004 In re Cardizem & Valley Drug Co.: The Hatch- Waxman Act, Anticompetitive Action, and Regulatory Reform Larissa Burford Follow this
More informationPharmaceutical Patent Settlements: Issues in Innovation and Competitiveness
Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements: Issues in Innovation and Competitiveness John R. Thomas Visiting Scholar February 15, 2013 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional
More informationActavis, the Reverse Payment Fallacy, and the Continuing Need for Regulatory Solutions
Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 7 2014 Actavis, the Reverse Payment Fallacy, and the Continuing Need for Regulatory Solutions Daniel A. Crane Follow this and additional
More informationFTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF INTEREST FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Interesting and difficult questions lie at the intersection of intellectual property rights and
More informationLooking Within the Scope of the Patent
Latham & Watkins Antitrust and Competition Practice Number 1540 June 25, 2013 Looking Within the Scope of the Patent The Supreme Court Holds That Settlements of Paragraph IV Litigation Are Subject to the
More informationAntitrust Issues in the Settlement of Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes, Part III
Antitrust Issues in the Settlement of Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes, Part III Thomas B. Leary t I. INTRODUCTION Once again, I will address the issue of litigation settlements between companies that hold
More informationNo IN THE MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., & UDL LABORATORIES, INC.,
11 No. 08-1461 IN THE MYLAN LABORATORIES, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., & UDL LABORATORIES, INC., v. Petitioners, TAKEDA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. & TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Respondents.
More informationIn Re: Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 466 F.3d 187 August 10, 2006, Decided
In Re: Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 466 F.3d 187 August 10, 2006, Decided [*190] SACK, Circuit Judge: This appeal, arising [**3] out of circumstances
More informationIn re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation: Reopening the Door for Pharmaceutical Competition
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 12 Issue 1 Article 3 2014 In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation: Reopening the Door for Pharmaceutical Competition Ahalya Sriskandarajah Northwestern
More informationCompetition Ahead? The Legal Landscape for Reverse Payment Settlements After Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 29 Issue 4 Annual Review 2014 Article 6 8-1-2014 Competition Ahead? The Legal Landscape for Reverse Payment Settlements After Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis,
More informationCase 1:99-cv DLC Document 101 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 199-cv-09887-DLC Document 101 Filed 08/05/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- ASTRA AKTIEBOLAG, et al., -v- Plaintiffs,
More informationIn Re Cardizem and Valley Drug: A View from the Faultline between Patent and Antitrust in Pharmaceutical Settlements
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 8 January 2004 In Re Cardizem and Valley Drug: A View from the Faultline between Patent and Antitrust in Pharmaceutical Settlements Richard
More informationPharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse
AUGUST 2009, RELEASE ONE Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse Kristina Nordlander & Patrick Harrison Sidley Austin LLP Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements A Presumption in Reverse Kristina
More informationNo. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. Petitioner, v. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, et al.
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION, et al. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationSchering-Plough and in Re Tamoxifen: Lawful Reverse Payments in the Hatch-Waxman Context
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 22 Issue 1 Article 3 January 2007 Schering-Plough and in Re Tamoxifen: Lawful Reverse Payments in the Hatch-Waxman Context Jeff Thomas Follow this and additional
More informationPATENT TERM LIMITS, ANTI-TRUST LAW, AND THE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT: WHY DEFENSE OF A LEGALLY GRANTED PATENT MONOPOLY DOES NOT VIOLATE ANTI- TRUST LAWS.
PATENT TERM LIMITS, ANTI-TRUST LAW, AND THE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT: WHY DEFENSE OF A LEGALLY GRANTED PATENT MONOPOLY DOES NOT VIOLATE ANTI- TRUST LAWS. Christopher Fasel I. INTRODUCTION In the interest of increasing
More informationNo.,, LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., AG, et al., BAYER AG AND BAYER CORP., et al.,
No.,, 10-762 IN TIlE ( urt fll Nnit h LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., AG, et al., Petitioners, V. BAYER AG AND BAYER CORP., et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TIlE UNITED STATES
More informationWASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION
Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5101 COMMENTS of WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION to the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Concerning Review of Existing Center for Drug Evaluation and
More informationFederal Circuit Provides Guidance on Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Royalty Rates, Vacating the Jury Award in Ericsson v.
In this Issue: WRITTEN BY COURTNEY J. ARMOUR AND KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN EDITED BY KOREN W. WONG-ERVIN The views expressed in this e-bulletin are the views of the authors alone. DECEMBER 1-6, 2014 Federal
More informationNo FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FORES~LASO~TO~S Hot~mes, L~., ~D H. LU~.CK A/S, Petitioners,
No. 08-624 FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FORES~LASO~TO~S Hot~mes, L~., ~D H. LU~.CK A/S, Petitioners, CARACO PHARI~CEUTICAL LABORATORIES, L~D., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the United
More informationCase Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,
Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. ILLUMINA, INC., ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Appellant, Appellee,
More informationIntellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims
Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims News from the State Bar of California Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section From the January 2018 E-Brief David
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationThe Role of Antitrust Principles in Patent Monopolies: The Third Circuit Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to No-AG Patent Settlements in Smithkline
Boston College Law Review Volume 58 Issue 6 Electronic Supplement Article 11 4-13-2017 The Role of Antitrust Principles in Patent Monopolies: The Third Circuit Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to No-AG Patent
More informationCase 1:10-mc CKK -AK Document 31 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-mc-00289-CKK -AK Document 31 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. PAUL M. BISARO, Misc. No. 10-289 (CKK)(AK)
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-416 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. Petitioner, ACTAVIS, INC., ET AL. Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh
More informationProduct Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls
Product Improvements and Life Cycle Management Antitrust Pitfalls NJ IP Law Association's 26th Annual Pharmaceutical/Chemical Patent Practice Update Paul Ragusa December 5, 2012 2012 Product Improvements
More informationA Pharmaceutical Park Place: Why the Supreme Court Should Modify the Scope of the Patent Test for Reverse Payment Deals
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 3 April 2013 A Pharmaceutical Park Place: Why the Supreme Court Should Modify the Scope of the Patent Test for Reverse Payment Deals David
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-416 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, v. Petitioner, ACTAVIS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1055 In the Supreme Court of the United States SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, D/B/A GLAXOSMITHKLINE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
More informationRecent developments in US law: Remedies and damages for improper patent listings in the FDA s Orange Book
Daniel G. Brown is a partner in the New York law firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug, LLP, and practises extensively in the Hatch Waxman area. He has been practising in New York since 1993 in the patent and intellectual
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1055 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, D/B/A GLAXOSMITHKLINE; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, Petitioners, v. KING DRUG COMPANY
More informationNo IN THE ( ourt of the: Petitioners, v. BAYER AG ~ ~D BAYER CORP., ETAL., Respondents.
No. 08-1194 OFFIUE OF 1HE CLEFI~ IN THE ( ourt of the: o I ARKANSAS CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, PAPER, A.E OF L., ETAL., Petitioners, v. BAYER AG ~ ~D BAYER CORP., ETAL., Respondents. ON PETITION
More information1 Bret Dickey, Jonathan Orszag & Laura Tyson, An Economic Assessment of Patent Settlements
Hatch-Waxman Act Reverse-Payment Settlements FTC v. Actavis, Inc. Pharmaceutical development is an uncertain business. The process is long and laborious, resulting in research costs that are substantially
More informationEdward J. King. Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 4
Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 4 2004 Don't Bite the Hand That Provides Life-Saving Drugs: Application of the Hatch-Waxman and Sherman Acts to the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Detrimental Effects to Future
More informationPayment After Actavis 100 Iowa Law Review 1 (forthcoming 2014) Michael A. Carrier *
Payment After Actavis 100 Iowa Law Review 1 (forthcoming 2014) Michael A. Carrier * One of the most pressing issues in patent and antitrust law involves agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay
More informationDIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
DIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION Rick Duncan Denise Kettleberger Melina Williams Faegre & Benson, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1361 Document: 83 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2014 Nos. 14-1361, -1366 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE BRCA1- AND BRCA2-BASED HEREDITARY CANCER TEST PATENT LITIGATION
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-416 In the Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. STEPHEN KIMBLE and MICHAEL GRABB, Petitioners, v. MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.
No. 13-720 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STEPHEN KIMBLE and MICHAEL GRABB, Petitioners, v. MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationReverse Payment Settlements: A Patent Approach to Defending the Argument for Illegality
Reverse Payment Settlements: A Patent Approach to Defending the Argument for Illegality CORY J. INGLE* Abstract: This note proposes a new strategy to address the challenges of reverse payment settlements
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationRAMBUS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Impact on Standards and Antitrust
RAMBUS, INC. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Impact on Standards and Antitrust American Intellectual Property Law Association IP Practice in Japan Committee October 2009, Washington, DC JOHN A. O BRIEN LAW
More informationSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S.
SUCCESSFULLY LITIGATING METHOD OF USE PATENTS IN THE U.S. The 10 th Annual Generics, Supergenerics, and Patent Strategies Conference London, England May 16, 2007 Provided by: Charles R. Wolfe, Jr. H. Keeto
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationFDA, PATENT TERM EXTENSIONS AND THE HATCH WAXMAN ACT. Dr.Sumesh Reddy- Dr. Reddys Lab Hyderabad-
FDA, PATENT TERM EXTENSIONS AND THE HATCH WAXMAN ACT Dr.Sumesh Reddy- Dr. Reddys Lab Hyderabad- FDA Regulatory approval-time and cost Focus of FDA approval process-safety and efficacy Difference between
More informationHOGAN & HARTSON APR -9 P4 :18 BY HAND DELIVERY
HOGAN & HARTSON 2741 10 APR -9 P4 :18 Hogan & Hartson up Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 +1.202.637.5600 Tel +1.202.637.5910 Fax www.hhlaw.com Philip Katz Partner 202.637.5632
More informationIn Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation: Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements Go beyond the Scope of the Patent
NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 14 Issue 1 Fall 2012 Article 9 10-1-2012 In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation: Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements Go beyond the Scope of the Patent
More informationHigh-Tech Patent Issues
August 6, 2012 High-Tech Patent Issues On June 4, 2013, the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues released its Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions, designed to protect innovators in
More informationRachel A. Lewis * * J.D. Candidate, Seattle University School of Law, I want to dedicate this Comment to my
Inevitable Imbalance: Why FTC v. Actavis Was Inadequate to Solve the Reverse Payment Settlement Problem and Proposing a New Amendment to the Hatch Waxman Act Rachel A. Lewis * The law regarding reverse
More informationCase 1:10-cv JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 110-cv-00137-JCJ Document 20 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SCHERING CORP., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
More informationFTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals: 677 F.3D 1298 (11th Cir. 2012)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 23 Issue 2 Spring 2013 Article 8 FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals: 677 F.3D 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) Christopher Bingham Galligan Follow this
More informationPHARMACEUTICAL LAW GROUP PC
in L PHARMACEUTICAL LAW GROUP PC AT THE INTERSECTION OF FDA REGULATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 900 SEVENTH STREET, NW - SUITE 650 - WASHINGTON, DC 20001-3886 T 202 589 1780 F 202 318 2198 WWW.PHARMALAWGRP.COM
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Case: 13-1377 Case: CASE 13-1377 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 45 Document: Page: 1 43 Filed: Page: 01/17/2014 1 Filed: 01/17/2014 No. 2013-1377 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
More informationThe ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman Litigation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman
More informationTHE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT AND THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ANTITRUST LAW & PATENT LAW
381 THE HATCH-WAXMAN ACT AND THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ANTITRUST LAW & PATENT LAW I. INTRODUCTION PAMELA J. CLEMENTS * On September 12, 2006, the chief executive officer of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Peter Dolan,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit
Case: 12-1170 Case: CASE 12-1170 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 99 Document: Page: 1 97 Filed: Page: 03/10/2014 1 Filed: 03/07/2014 2012-1170 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SUPREMA,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DANIEL KEVIN SCHMIDT, : CASE NO.: SC00-2512 : Lower Tribunal No.: 1D00-4166 Petitioner, : Circuit Court No.: 00-1971 : vs. : : STATE OF FLORIDA et al., : : Respondents. : : AMENDED
More informationS. 214 s Inappropriate Interference With the Fundamental Right to Settle Litigation. Paul Bender Christopher A. Mohr Michael R.
S. 214 s Inappropriate Interference With the Fundamental Right to Settle Litigation Paul Bender Christopher A. Mohr Michael R. Klipper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Patent settlement agreements with consideration
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationANTITRUST AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION
ANTITRUST AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION Boston University School of Law Law & Economics Working Paper No. 16-32 Forthcoming in, Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property
More informationFrom Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims?
NOVEMBER 2008, RELEASE TWO From Walker Process to In re DDAVP: Should Direct Purchasers Have Antitrust Standing in Walker Process Claims? Aidan Synnott Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP From
More informationRe: In the Matter of Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No
The Honorable Donald S. Clark, Secretary Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 Re: In the Matter of Robert Bosch GmbH, FTC File No. 121-0081 Dear Secretary Clark: The
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1077 BAYER AG and BAYER CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Bartlit Beck
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More information