PeopleImages / iStockphoto.com
Several pending cases should provide further guidance on the contentious issue of ‘pay-for-delay’, where IP and competition laws collide. WIPR reports.
There has been a clear setback for the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an area where the laws on IP and competition overlap.
In May this year, a judge dismissed the FTC’s claims that in return for a $112 million payment, Impax Laboratories had violated antitrust law by not marketing a generic version of Endo Pharmaceuticals’ pain-relief drug Opana ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride extended-release tablets) and abandoning a related patent challenge.
The case is a closely-watched example of the highly contentious issue of ‘pay-for-delay’, where branded drug companies locked in patent litigation with generic companies pay their rivals to keep them off the market. It was also the first reverse-payment trial since the US Supreme Court’s landmark 2013 decision in FTC v Actavis.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at email@example.com
competition law, antitrust, Federal Trade Commission, pay-for-delay, patent litigation, generic drug companies, branding, Impax, drug development, regulate