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.

Disclaimer

Matthew McFarlane

Related Publications

December 8, 2022
Lessons From MMAS Research About Dispositive Pitfalls in Copyright Litigation
David Martinez, Austin Miller - Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal
November 19, 2022
How to Use the USPTO Patent Public Search Tool
Miles Finn, Rajin Olson, Kelson Bain, and Ian LaForge - IPWatchdog
October 2022
In No Uncertain Terms
Bryan Mechell - The Robins Kaplan Quarterly
October 7, 2022
The Perils of Piecemeal Invocation of Arbitration Rights
Stephen Safranski, Ryan Marth - Law360
September 13, 2022
Patent Value: Scoring Patents Using Characteristics Of Patents In Litigation
Christopher K. Larus, Miles A. Finn, Congnan Zhan, Joseph (Yu) Chen, and Shelley Gilliss - les Nouvelles
Back to Top