Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T23:56:45.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Drug Patent Settlements

from Part IV - Competitor Collaboration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

By
Michael A. Carrier
Edited by
Roger D. Blair  and
D. Daniel Sokol
Roger D. Blair
Affiliation:
University of Florida
D. Daniel Sokol
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech , pp. 319 - 338
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

AIPLA. 2013. Report of the Economic Survey.Google Scholar
Canadian Competition Bureau. 2014. Patent Litigation Settlement Agreements: A Canadian Perspective.Google Scholar
Carrier, Michael A. 2009. Unsettling Drug Patent Settlements: A Framework for Presumptive Illegality. Michigan Law Review, 108,37, 60–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Carrier, Michael A. 2014. Payment After Actavis. Iowa Law Review, 100, 7Google Scholar
Carrier, Michael A. 2015. Eight Reasons Why “No-Authorized-Generic” Promises Constitute Payment. Rutgers University Law Review, 67, 697, 706–7.Google Scholar
Edlin, Aaron, Hemphill, Scott, Hovenkamp, Herbert, and Shapiro, Carl. 2013. Activating Actavis. Antitrust, 28, 16, 19.Google Scholar
Edlin, Aaron, Hemphill, Scott, Hovenkamp, Herbert, and, Shapiro, Carl. 2015. The Actavis Inference: Theory and Practice. Rutgers University Law Review, 67, 585, 613.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2009. Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Final Report (European Commission Staff Working Paper).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2010. First Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: mid 2008–end 2009).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2011. Second Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: January–December 2010).Google Scholar
European Commission. 2012. 3rd Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: January–December 2011), 25 July.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013a. Antitrust: Commission fines Lundbeck and other pharma companies for delaying market entry of generic medicine, 19 June.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2013b. 4th Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: January–December 2012), 9 December.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2014. Antitrust: Commission fines Servier and five generic companies for curbing entry of cheaper versions of cardiovascular medicine, 9 July.Google Scholar
EC, Commission decision of 19 June 2013, Case AT.39226 – Lundbeck.Google Scholar
EC, Commission decision of 9 July 2014, Case AT.39612 – Perindopril (Servier).Google Scholar
FTC. 2000. FTC Charges Drug Manufacturers with Stifling Competition in Two Prescription Drug Markets.Google Scholar
FTC. 2009. The Evolving IP Marketplace.Google Scholar
FTC. 2011. The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition.Google Scholar
FTC, Bureau of Comp. 2007. Agreements Filed with the Federal Trade Commission Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: Summary of Agreements Filed in FY 2006.Google Scholar
FTC. 2013. Agreements Filed with the Federal Trade Commission Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003: Overview of Agreements Filed in FY 2012.Google Scholar
Herman, Michael R. 2011. The Stay Dilemma: Examining Brand and Generic Incentives for Delaying the Resolution of Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation. Columbia Law Review, 111, 1788Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Bruce H., Wright, Joshua D., Ginsburg, Douglas H., and Tsai, Joanna. 2015. Actavis and Multiple ANDA Entrants: Beyond the Temporary Duopoly. Antitrust, 29, 89.Google Scholar
Trubek, David M. et al. 1983. The Costs of Ordinary Litigation. UCLA L. Rev. 31, 72, 91.Google Scholar
American Sales Co. v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 14-2071 (1st Cir. filed Oct. 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986, 994 (N.D. Ill. 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2015 WL 2114380 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2015).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Cephalon, 36 F. Supp. 3d 527, 537 (E.D. Pa. 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, 677 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
In re Cipro Cases I & II, 2015 WL 2125291 (Cal. May 7, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 4988410 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014).Google Scholar
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), judgment vacated sub nom. Merck & Co. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., 133 S. Ct. 2849 (2013).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523, 542 (D.N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 231, 272 (D. Mass. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., No. 08-cv-02431 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2014).Google Scholar
Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendants Against Plaintiffs Returned, In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., No. 12-md-02409 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2014), ECF No. 1374.Google Scholar
King Drug Company of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation (Lamictal), 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
King Drug Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., 2015 WL 356913, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Loestrin, 45 F. Supp.3d 180, 189–91, 193 (D.R.I. 2014), appeal docketed, City of Providence, RI v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 15-1250 (1st Cir. filed Feb. 25, 2015).Google Scholar
Mylan Pharms. v. FDA, 2005 WL 2411674 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2005).Google Scholar
Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. May 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., at 2 n. 7 (May 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Crawford, 410 F.3d 51, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Teva’s Memorandum in Support of Directed Verdict Motion on Threshold Issue of a Large and Unexplained Payment, In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust Litig., Case 1:12-md-02409-WGY, at 12–13 (D. Mass. Nov. 10, 2014).Google Scholar
Time Ins. Co. v. AstraZeneca, 2014 WL 4933025 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2014).Google Scholar
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA (Lidoderm), 2014 WL 6465235 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014).Google Scholar
American Sales Co. v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 14-2071 (1st Cir. filed Oct. 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986, 994 (N.D. Ill. 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2015 WL 2114380 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2015).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Cephalon, 36 F. Supp. 3d 527, 537 (E.D. Pa. 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, 677 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
In re Cipro Cases I & II, 2015 WL 2125291 (Cal. May 7, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 4988410 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014).Google Scholar
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), judgment vacated sub nom. Merck & Co. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., 133 S. Ct. 2849 (2013).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523, 542 (D.N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 231, 272 (D. Mass. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., No. 08-cv-02431 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2014).Google Scholar
Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendants Against Plaintiffs Returned, In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., No. 12-md-02409 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2014), ECF No. 1374.Google Scholar
King Drug Company of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation (Lamictal), 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
King Drug Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., 2015 WL 356913, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Loestrin, 45 F. Supp.3d 180, 189–91, 193 (D.R.I. 2014), appeal docketed, City of Providence, RI v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 15-1250 (1st Cir. filed Feb. 25, 2015).Google Scholar
Mylan Pharms. v. FDA, 2005 WL 2411674 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2005).Google Scholar
Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. May 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., at 2 n. 7 (May 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Crawford, 410 F.3d 51, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Teva’s Memorandum in Support of Directed Verdict Motion on Threshold Issue of a Large and Unexplained Payment, In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust Litig., Case 1:12-md-02409-WGY, at 12–13 (D. Mass. Nov. 10, 2014).Google Scholar
Time Ins. Co. v. AstraZeneca, 2014 WL 4933025 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2014).Google Scholar
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA (Lidoderm), 2014 WL 6465235 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014).Google Scholar

Cases

American Sales Co. v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 14-2071 (1st Cir. filed Oct. 14, 2014).Google Scholar
Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharm., Inc., 289 F. Supp. 2d 986, 994 (N.D. Ill. 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 2015 WL 2114380 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2015).Google Scholar
FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Cephalon, 36 F. Supp. 3d 527, 537 (E.D. Pa. 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, 677 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1311352 (D. Conn. Mar. 23, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
In re Cipro Cases I & II, 2015 WL 2125291 (Cal. May 7, 2015).Google Scholar
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 4988410 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2014).Google Scholar
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, 686 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2012), judgment vacated sub nom. Merck & Co. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., 133 S. Ct. 2849 (2013).Google Scholar
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523, 542 (D.N.J. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013).Google Scholar
In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 231, 272 (D. Mass. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., 42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. 2014).Google Scholar
In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., No. 08-cv-02431 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2014).Google Scholar
Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendants Against Plaintiffs Returned, In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., No. 12-md-02409 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2014), ECF No. 1374.Google Scholar
King Drug Company of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation (Lamictal), 791 F.3d 388 (3d Cir. 2015).Google Scholar
King Drug Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc., 2015 WL 356913, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Loestrin, 45 F. Supp.3d 180, 189–91, 193 (D.R.I. 2014), appeal docketed, City of Providence, RI v. Warner Chilcott Co., No. 15-1250 (1st Cir. filed Feb. 25, 2015).Google Scholar
Mylan Pharms. v. FDA, 2005 WL 2411674 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 29, 2005).Google Scholar
Schering-Plough Corp. v. FTC, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 1:09-cv-00955-TWT (N.D. Ga. May 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., at 2 n. 7 (May 28, 2015).Google Scholar
Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Crawford, 410 F.3d 51, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
Teva’s Memorandum in Support of Directed Verdict Motion on Threshold Issue of a Large and Unexplained Payment, In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust Litig., Case 1:12-md-02409-WGY, at 12–13 (D. Mass. Nov. 10, 2014).Google Scholar
Time Ins. Co. v. AstraZeneca, 2014 WL 4933025 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2014).Google Scholar
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Teikoku Pharma USA (Lidoderm), 2014 WL 6465235 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2014).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×