Skip to main content

Displaying 901 - 920 of 2123

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (FTC v. Actavis)

On 2/2/2009, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court challenging and agreement between Solvay Pharmaceuticals and two generic drug manufacturers in which Solvay paid for the delayed release of generic equivalents to its own testosterone-replacement drug, AndroGel, typically used in the treatment of men with low testosterone levels due to advanced age, certain cancers, and HIV/AIDS. According to the Commission’s complaint, in an effort to prevent Watson Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals from acquiring patents for their competing testosterone replacement drugs, Solvay paid the companies to delay entry for a nine year period, ending in 2015. 

This case was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the Northern District of Georgia.  The district court dismissed the Commission's complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that anticompetitive effects within the scope of patent protection are per se legal under the antitrust laws.

On 10/4/2012, the FTC filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.  On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 11th Circuit, rejecting the scope of the patent test and permitting antitrust review of reverse payment patent settlement agreements.

There are three related administrative proceedings:

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
071 0060

Penn National Gaming and Pinnacle Entertainment, In the Matter of

The FTC required casino operators Penn National Gaming, Inc. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. to divest casino-related assets in three Midwestern cities to  resolves charges that Penn’s $2.8 billion agreement to acquire Pinnacle likely would be anticompetitive. The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm competition for casino services in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Casino services include gaming services such as slots and table games, as well as related lodging, entertainment, and food and beverage services, according to the complaint. Typically, casino operators generate the vast majority of their revenues from gaming. Casinos are highly regulated, with a limited number of licenses granted in any given state, as well as age restrictions on who can gamble. According to the complaint, the acquisition, if consummated, likely would eliminate direct competition between Penn and Pinnacle, increasing the likelihood that Penn would unilaterally exercise market power, and lead to higher prices and reduced quality for consumers of casino services.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
181 0011
C-4658
Mar25

FTC Hearing #11: The FTC’s Role in a Changing World

-
-
The 11th session of the Federal Trade Commission’s Hearings Initiative, “The FTC’s Role in a Changing World,” focused on the agency’s international work. The hearing took place in Washington, D.C. on...