Search for: "Actavis"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,010
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2013, 5:48 am
Actavis Mid Atlantic, concerning the breadth of an advance waiver between a sophisticated client and law firm, should be reviewed very carefully by in-house and outside counsel. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 9:59 pm
Actavis, Inc. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
Actavis. [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 10:03 pm
Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416 (U.S. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 10:22 am
Actavis, where the court ruled five-to-three that reverse payments, also called pay-for-delay settlements, can violate antitrust laws and are subject to antitrust review under the rule-of-reason. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:51 am
Solvay brought suit against Actavis and Paddock. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:09 am
Actavis, a five-member majority of the Court held that such payments may violate the antitrust laws and should be evaluated under the rule of reason. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:52 am
Last week, in Federal Trade Commission v Actavis Inc. et Al., the US Supreme Court turned its attention to a fascinating crossroad of IP and competition law, reverse payment settlements. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 10:08 am
Solvay brought suit against Actavis and Paddock. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 6:08 am
Solvay brought suit against Actavis and Paddock. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 8:58 pm
Guest Posts We received two interesting and informative guest posts on the Myriad and Actavis cases. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 8:50 pm
.; Actavis Elizabeth LLC; Actavis Inc. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 12:56 pm
Actavis, the Court held, in a five-to-three decision by Justice Breyer (Justice Alito was recused), that antitrust lawsuits challenging so-called “reverse payments” may proceed. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 11:26 am
Actavis, the Federal Trade Commission sued all parties (Solvay (patentee) and Actavis (generic drug manufacturer) to a Pay for Delay settlement agreement for violating antitrust laws. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 10:04 am
Actavis: Will the “Rule of Reason” End Reverse Payment Settlements? [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 1:00 am
Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust violations under a “rule of reason” analysis. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 4:01 pm
Actavis that permitted the Federal Trade Commission to sue pharmaceutical companies for potential antitrust violations when they enter into “pay-to-delay” agreements. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 9:22 pm
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Reverse Payments: Impact of U.S. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 6:11 pm
Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416 (U.S. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 11:43 am
For more on the Actavis case, please see Supremes Say Reverse Payments May Be Antitrust Violation. [read post]
