The Supreme Court in FTC v Actavis created a new species of antitrust liability when it held that reverse payments from a branded company to an ANDA filer, as part of a Hatch-Waxman settlement agreement, may be unlawful where the “basic reason is a desire to maintain and to share patent-generated monopoly profits.” 133 S. Ct.…
In In re Modafinil Litigation, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a plaintiff challenging a reverse payment as anti-competitive need not prove as a threshold matter that the reverse payment was both large and unjustified. Rather, this analysis should be part of the traditional “rule of reason” test. The Court also held that…
We have considered before [see here, and here] how U.S. courts are handling reverse payment cases in the wake of FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (June 17, 2013). Now, for the first time, a federal jury has weighed in on one of these cases. On Dec. 5, 2014, in In re Nexium (Esomeprazole)…