Latest Headlines

Latest Headlines

FTC aiming for $1B pay-for-delay patent settlement this year

The Federal Trade Commission is so fed up with "pay-for-delay" pharma deals, that it's hoping to reach a $1 billion settlement in at least one pharma antitrust case this year. That's the word from Deborah Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, who revealed the agency's aims at a recent meeting of the American Bar Association's Section of Antitrust Law in Washington, D.C.

Pay-for-delay: Is cash the only antitrust test that matters in patent settlements?

Patent settlements between drugmakers and generic manufacturers have drawn even more scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer that the Federal Trade Commission has a right to challenge them. At issue are "pay-for-delay" deals, in which manufacturers of branded drugs pay generics challengers to refrain from launching copies until an agreed-upon date.

FTC tells Mylan to sell 11 drugs to complete $1.6B Agila deal

India also has signed off on Mylan's deal to buy the injectable unit from Strides Arcolab. The company reportedly agreed there to maintain the production of certain drugs in India that Agila currently manufacturers.

FTC asks to file brief in Effexor case, testing Supreme Court's pay-for-delay ruling

The Federal Trade Commission has submitted an amicus brief in an antitrust case pitting drug retailers against Wyeth and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, in a challenge to the companies' Effexor XR settlement.

FTC asks Actavis, Warner Chilcott for more info on merger

The Federal Trade Commission is taking a closer look at what the $8.5 billion buyout of Warner Chilcott by Actavis will mean for consumers. 

UPDATED: GPhA says patent settlements saved system $25.5B

The Federal Trade Commission and some consumer groups would like Congress to make pay-for-delay deals illegal. But the Generic Pharmaceutical Association has new stats it hopes can persuade Congress to leave well enough alone.

UPDATED: U.S. Supreme Court protects generic drugmakers in 5-4 ruling

Just a week after the top court said U.S. drugmakers can be sued over agreements that delay generics, the court has found that generic drugmakers cannot be sued in state courts when their products cause adverse reactions.

Who wins after SCOTUS pay-for-delay decision? Lawyers

The pay-for-delay ruling is in. That means legal experts and industry analysts are poring over the decision, trying to assess its consequences. Any consensus? By eschewing the Federal Trade Commission's position--that patent-settlement payments should be assumed anticompetitive--the Supreme Court left pharma some leeway. That's better than it might have been. But the choice also leaves a lot of uncertainty on the table. Here's a roundup of opinions and commentary >>

Supreme Court slaps pharma aside in pay-for-delay ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the big pay-for-delay case. In a 5-3 vote, the court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission has the right to challenge brand-name drugmakers' patent settlements with generics companies. It's a slap in the face for the drug industry, which has united behind the settlements, saying they speed generics to market rather than impeding competition.

Supreme Court skeptical of both sides in pay-for-delay case

On the one hand, the justices didn't seem to buy the Federal Trade Commission's stand that "pay for delay" patent settlements are inherently anti-competitive. But they didn't seem to agree with drugmakers' definition of an A-OK cash settlement, either.