FTC demands corrections in GSK, Teva pay-for-delay ruling
Tetiana Yurchenko / Shutterstock.com
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.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into for FREE, please contact Atif at email@example.com.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, pay-for-delay, GSK, Teva, antitrust