The pharmaceutical industry presents some of the most important and challenging issues lying at the intersection of the patent and antitrust laws. On the one hand, patents play a crucial role in the industry, which is unique in the cost and duration of reaching the market. But on the other, a complicated regulatory regime and the event of generic entry (which dramatically lowers price and which the brand firm has interest in delaying) opens the door for potentially anticompetitive behavior. One area where this tension has surfaced in recent years has involved the settlement of patent litigation. In 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that agreements by which brand-name drug companies pay generics to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market could have “significant anticompetitive effects” and violate the antitrust laws.
Litigation
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- CAFC Sends Centripetal Back to Drawing Board in Case with Cisco Due to Judge’s Stock
- Note to Senators: U.S. Patent Office Remains Under a Permanent Injunction
- ‘Sacrifices’: PTAB Reform Act Would Limit Fintiv Denials
- Conflicting Precedent for the Supreme Court in American Axle
Recent Posts
- USPTO Report Underscores Split on State of U.S. Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- CAFC Sends Centripetal Back to Drawing Board in Case with Cisco Due to Judge’s Stock
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 24: Congressional Hearings Focus on PTAB Reforms, French Regulators Accept Google’s Copyright Payment Framework, and DOJ Announces Settlement with Meta Over Biased Ad Algorithm
- Sotera Declarations Less Likely Given Vidal Memo on PTAB Discretion