Subscribe
roman-sinichkin-shutterstock-com-drugs-
Roman Sinichkin / Shutterstock.com
17 March 2016Americas

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?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

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
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.
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.


Editor's picks

Explainer: ARIPO’s role in Plant Variety Protection
Africa
Explainer: ARIPO’s role in Plant Variety Protection
15 July 2025

Editor's picks

Africa
Explainer: ARIPO’s role in Plant Variety Protection
15 July 2025
Europe
‘We created law’: G1/24 and the creation of the ‘diamond standard’
3 July 2025
Americas
Bankruptcy judge approves $305m sale of genetics testing company
1 July 2025
Americas
A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
24 June 2025
Europe
Diverging in the detail: UPC local divisions and Court of Appeal take different paths
19 June 2025
Europe
UPC confirms permanent injunction against Curio in 10x tech dispute
17 June 2025

More on this story

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.
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.

More on this story

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.
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.

More features

In-house with Bayer: ‘Focus on quality early and stay close to inventors’
Explainer: ARIPO’s role in Plant Variety Protection
J&J sues over schizophrenia drug generic following patent victory
WATCH: The transparency tightrope—balancing innovation, regulation, and IP protection in a new era
Chicago firm Much Shelist adds partner with ‘entrepreneurial mindset’
Powell Gilbert launches Düsseldorf office with leading patent litigator
Startups toolkit: Why investors want more than patents
J&J fends off generic schizophrenia drug bids