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

Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
Americas
Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
8 May 2025

Editor's picks

Americas
Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
8 May 2025
Americas
LSPN: Using ‘the patentee’s friend’ in Section 112 claims
6 May 2025
Americas
Why US patent reform is ‘essential’ for US economic prosperity and security
29 April 2025
Europe
Meril v Edwards: Harmonisation of obviousness at the UPC and the EPO
24 April 2025
Americas
WIPR Diversity & Inclusion reveals Top 100 People in IP for 2025
24 April 2025
Big Pharma
AstraZeneca unit faces class-action suit over alleged Soliris monopoly
17 April 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

Life sciences leaders recognised at LSPN Awards USA 2025
UK-India trade deal is ‘a missed opportunity for UK pharma’, says industry body
LSPN: Counsel grapple with AI’s impact on training and critical thinking
'Nothing can stand in the way of our work': Ukraine resumes IP system
LSPN: Trump's policy storm causing chaos and confusion
Taylor Wessing expands in Europe with Paris team
LSPN: Using ‘the patentee’s friend’ in Section 112 claims
ResMed voids sleep apnoea tech patent at PTAB