A recent summary judgment opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania breaks new ground in the developing antitrust law on “product hopping” claims. “Product hopping” refers to the practice of changing the form or dosage of a branded drug without changing its underlying composition. Though drug manufacturers often make such changes for legitimate business reasons, … Continue Reading
Nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), “reverse payment” settlements in patent litigation between brand-name drug manufacturers and potential generic entrants remain a hot topic in the antitrust world. At the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held in Washington, D.C., … Continue Reading
If the uncertainty that the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision injected into the world of reverse-payment settlement litigation wasn’t enough to get your attention, then the FTC’s recent effort to obtain disgorgement from Cephalon in a reverse-payment case should do so. Cephalon is arguing that the federal district court should dismiss the FTC’s near six-year-old complaint … Continue Reading
Posted in Antitrust Litigation, Patents
