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. […]
Three years ago, the Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Comm’n v. Actavis, Inc. that pay-for-delay settlement agreements may constitute antitrust violations under the rule of reason if their anticompetitive effects are unreasonable when viewed in light of the agreements’ size, scale in relation to future litigation costs, independence from other services that might justify […]
In the antitrust case of Mylan v. Celgene, pending in the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 14-2094), Judge Esther Salas issued an oral order, finding that Mylan had stated a claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act based on Celgene’s refusal to sell samples of certain pharmaceutical products to Mylan. In particular, Judge Salas […]