The Supreme Court in FTC v Actavis created a new species of antitrust liability when it held that reverse payments from a branded company to an ANDA filer, as part of a Hatch-Waxman settlement agreement, may be unlawful where the “basic reason is a desire to maintain and to share patent-generated monopoly profits.” 133 S. Ct. […]
In In re Modafinil Litigation, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a plaintiff challenging a reverse payment as anti-competitive need not prove as a threshold matter that the reverse payment was both large and unjustified. Rather, this analysis should be part of the traditional “rule of reason” test. The Court also held that […]
We have considered before [see here, and here] how U.S. courts are handling reverse payment cases in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (June 17, 2013). Now, for the first time, a federal jury has weighed in on one of these cases. On Dec. 5, 2014, in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) […]