Muddying the Setdement Waters: Open Questions and Unintended Consequences Following FTC v. Actavis

The Act changed the analysis by creating a situation in which the generic firm could challenge validity and/or infringement without risking damages.\n Since the FTC will still bear the burden of proof, only the most aggressive settlements will attract the agency's sustained attention. [...]whil...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAntitrust Vol. 28; no. 1; p. 9
Main Author Reeves, Amanda P
Format Trade Publication Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago American Bar Association 01.10.2013
Subjects
Generic drugs
Intellectual property
Litigation
Pharmaceutical industry
Settlements & damages
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The Act changed the analysis by creating a situation in which the generic firm could challenge validity and/or infringement without risking damages.\n Since the FTC will still bear the burden of proof, only the most aggressive settlements will attract the agency's sustained attention. [...]while potential plaintiffs may perceive that they will have an easier time in the courts given the Court's refusal to adopt the scope-of-the-patent test, it is not evident that the FTC's case selection will demonstrably change. The Court's broad pronouncements regarding the interplay between a brand's intellectual property rights, on the one hand, and the policies and objectives of the Hatch-Waxman Act and antitrust law, on the other, may cause courts in these cases to evaluate these arguments in a new light.
ISSN:0162-7996
2162-996X