5 Red Flags In Pharmaceutical Settlements

After Activis, reverse payment pharmaceutical settlement conduct that can create increased FTC and state attorney general antitrust scrutiny.

May 13, 2014

 When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis Inc.[1] last year, it opened the door to antitrust challenges to settlements between generic and branded pharmaceutical companies to resolve patent litigation under the Hatch‐Waxman Act. Although Actavis offers some guidance as to what constitutes an “illegal” reverse payment, the court largely left it to the lower courts and the FTC to sketch the contours of permissible reverse payments. As a result, interested parties can now expect a higher probability for close scrutiny of those settlements. It is important to understand the “red flags” likely to pique the interest of scrutinizing eyes.

All Content © 2003‐2014, Portfolio Media, Inc.

The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.


Matthew McFarlane

Related Publications

September 22, 2020
Herbal Patent Protection
Shui Li - 闻宁阁 American Intellectual Property
August 26, 2020
INSIGHT: Avoiding Trade Secret Claims After Seeing a Competitor’s Crown Jewels
Jake Holdreith, David Prange, Emily Tremblay - Bloomberg Law
July 2020
Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation Strategies
Jeffrey Alan Hovden - LexisNexis
June 2020
Trade Secrets: Safe as Houses
Christopher Larus, David Prange, Alyssa Bixby-Lawson - Intellectual Property Magazine
Back to Top