“Reverse payment” settlements in brand / generic pharmaceutical patent litigation became the norm. FTC and other private litigants challenged these settlements under antitrust laws. Some courts said the settlements were immune from antitrust laws, others said they were illegal. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis ruled that those settlements are neither per se legal or illegal under antitrust laws, but that whether each settlement was a violation depended on its own surrounding circumstances. The future practical implications are enormous for parties.
In this webinar, we will provide a brief background of the case, but more importantly focus on the future implications. We will discuss:
The particular reverse settlement payments at issue
The Actavis case, what was alleged, what was decided, and how similar cases were decided in other courts
How will such lawsuits be litigated and what steps should future defendants take to insulate themselves from charges of anti-competition
What kind of settlements will be likely targeted
What defenses may exist to defendants to show the reasonableness and what role, if any, will the merits of the patent case have
What remedies might the plaintiffs seek and what practical effect will that have on the parties.
- Future of settlements
Shashank Upadhye and Scott Schaefers, partners in the Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP will give their guidance on the IP and antitrust implications of the FTC v. Actavis case.
If you have any questions, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
*CLE: Seyfarth has applied for CLE credit in IL, NY, and CA. If you would like us to pursue CLE credit in any additional states, please contact email@example.com. Please note that in order to receive full credit for attending this webinar, the registrant must be present for the entire session.