Tag: pay for delay

Displaying 1 - 20 of 39 results.

Pages

For more than 15 years, one of the FTC’s top priorities has been to put an end to anticompetitive reverse-payment settlements between brand-name drug makers and their potential generic rivals. In our view, these settlements are anticompetitive agreements not to compete in which the...
There is a basic but important difference between antitrust cases brought by the government and those brought by private parties: All plaintiffs, including government enforcers like the FTC, must prove an antitrust violation, which requires showing harm to competition. But private...
Since 2004, brand-name and generic drug manufacturers have filed certain agreements with the FTC and DOJ as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act (also known as MMA filings).
In Fiscal Year 2013, companies filed a total of 145 final patent dispute settlements, of which 29 created potential “pay-for-delay” agreements between branded and generic drug companies, according to a new Federal Trade Commission staff report.  Although the number of potential pay-for-delay...
In a recently published article, we discuss our finding that generic drug companies successfully use low-pricing strategies to discourage entry by new competitors in certain circumstances.
Brief of the Federal Trade Commission as amicus curiae urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse a district court determination that a brand-name drug manufacturer’s commitment not to introduce an authorized generic version of its own brand-name drug in...
Related: Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission and Testimony
In testimony presented to a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee the Federal Trade Commission described its ongoing efforts to protect competition and consumers in many important sectors of the economy, including health care, pharmaceuticals, and technology.
The Federal Trade Commission has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to accept an amicus brief that addresses the application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in FTC v. Actavis to a patent settlement containing a “no-authorized-generic” commitment.
The Federal Trade Commission told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee today that it will continue to challenge anticompetitive pay-for-delay court settlements in the pharmaceutical industry, and that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Actavis “is an important victory for consumers and a...

Pages