FTC demands corrections in GSK, Teva pay-for-delay ruling

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has urged a federal appeals court to correct errors in a judgment from a Pennsylvania court that found the plaintiff in a pay-for-delay case had failed to prove that the agreement breached US competition law.

Already registered?

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk

More on this story

Americas

First Circuit says Actavis pay-for-delay ruling applies to non-cash settlements

23 February 2016 The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has revived claims that pay-for-delay settlements involving pharmaceutical company Warner Chilcott may be in breach of competition law, despite the deals not including cash payments.

Americas

US court says ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash

29 June 2015 The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that so-called ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash payments to be considered anticompetitive.

Americas

Fed Circ panel reviews $235m GSK award over ‘skinny’ Teva generic

25 February 2021 A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has considered for a second time the $235 million award to GlaxoSmithKline after Teva Pharmaceuticals was found to have infringed its Coreg heart drug.

More on this story

Americas

First Circuit says Actavis pay-for-delay ruling applies to non-cash settlements

Americas

US court says ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash

29 June 2015 The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that so-called ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash payments to be considered anticompetitive.

Americas

Fed Circ panel reviews $235m GSK award over ‘skinny’ Teva generic

More on this story

Americas

First Circuit says Actavis pay-for-delay ruling applies to non-cash settlements

Americas

US court says ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash

29 June 2015 The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that so-called ‘pay-for-delay’ settlements do not need to involve cash payments to be considered anticompetitive.

Americas

Fed Circ panel reviews $235m GSK award over ‘skinny’ Teva generic