Challenges to reverse-payment settlements—the deals made by major pharmaceutical companies with generic drugmakers in order to keep the cheaper drugs off the market—don’t have a new threshold to meet, a federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled in an opinion defining the contours left open in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Referring to the high court’s 2013 opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said, “Actavis primarily instructs that the familiar antitrust rule-of-reason analysis be applied to cases challenging reverse-payment settlements. This analysis does not include a ‘threshold burden,’” as the defendants in this case, FTC v. Cephalon, had argued.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
