Search for: "In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2011, 12:20 pm
Department of Justice, filed an amicus brief yesterday, May 18, 2011, supporting the plaintiffs in Re K-Dur Antitrust litigation in the U.S. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 6:30 am
The Third Circuit’s decision in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation breathed new life into the FTC’s fight against pay-for-delay settlement agreements. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 9:14 pm
§ 271(e)(2) are anticompetitve and barred by Federal antitrust law, in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 9:52 pm
In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077 (3d Cir.) [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:12 am
”: In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (KEI) (Out-Law) (Patent Docs) Circadin (Melatonin) – EU: Supplementary [...] [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 7:22 am
Defendants in reverse-payment actions pending in the Third Circuit (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) take note: in In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation the Honorable Joel A. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 4:56 am
In In re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, the court rejected the idea -- accepted by other courts -- that a pay-for-delay settlement escapes antitrust scrutiny so long as the settlement falls within the scope of the patent (which the Third Circuit said was a good test for big pharma companies with fat wallets, but bad for consumers). [read post]
16 Sep 2012, 5:12 pm
Last month, in In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2078 (3rd Cir. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 7:25 am
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed summary judgment in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, and resurrected claims against defendant drug manufacturers that entered into so-called “reverse-payment” or “pay-for-delay” patent litigation settlements that allegedly delayed the sale of generic drugs. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:12 am
Michelle Olsen over at Appellate Daily reports that last month "a unanimous three-judge 3rd Circuit panel deciding In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation found that pay-for-delay deals are 'prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade.'" In rejecting the alternative "scope of the patent test," the Third... [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:20 am
On Monday, in In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2078 (3rd Cir. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm
The July 16, 2012, opinion in In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, is available here. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm
The July 16, 2012, opinion in In Re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, No. 10-2077, is available here. [read post]
23 May 2011, 1:54 pm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In Re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, Case Nos. 10-2077, 10-2078, 10-2079. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 8:16 pm
" In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., No. 10-2077, slip op. at 33 (3d Cir. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 8:50 pm
In a “no-AG” agreement or commitment, the branded firm, as part of a patent settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own generic alternative when the first generic begins to compete.The issue addressed by the FTC in Effexor is whether a branded drug company’s commitment not to launch an authorized generic drug in competition with a generic qualifies as a “reverse payment” under last month’s Third Circuit’s ruling in In Re:… [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 8:50 pm
In a “no-AG” agreement or commitment, the branded firm, as part of a patent settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own generic alternative when the first generic begins to compete.The issue addressed by the FTC in Effexor is whether a branded drug company’s commitment not to launch an authorized generic drug in competition with a generic qualifies as a “reverse payment” under last month’s Third Circuit’s ruling in In Re:… [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 8:50 pm
In a “no-AG” agreement or commitment, the branded firm, as part of a patent settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own generic alternative when the first generic begins to compete.The issue addressed by the FTC in Effexor is whether a branded drug company’s commitment not to launch an authorized generic drug in competition with a generic qualifies as a “reverse payment” under last month’s Third Circuit’s ruling in In Re:… [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 10:04 am
Shortly after the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Actavis, the Third Circuit rejected the “scope of the patent test” in the In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation and instead applied the “quick look” test to find the reverse payment settlement there presumptively illegal. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 5:52 pm
The In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation followed an FTC action against Schering challenging the same settlements. [read post]
