Pay-for-Delay

05/11/2015

Pay-for-Delay Lawsuits Strengthened by CA Supreme Court Opinion

Pay For Delay Drug Litigation

Audet & Partners, LLP reports that the California Supreme Court has issued an opinion which may leave large pharmaceutical companies vulnerable to antitrust challenges arising out of patent litigation settlements that effectively stifle competition in the pharmaceutical marketplace.  In these "pay-for-delay" lawsuits, manufacturers have been sued by consumers claiming that drug companies paid off smaller generic manufacturers as a way to keep lower-cost generics off the market.  In so doing, the larger companies have been able to maintain higher prices... Read More
08/14/2014

Pay-for-Delay Lawsuit Alleges Scheme Against Generic Opana Painkiller

Pay-for-Delay Lawsuit re Opana

Audet & Partners, LLP reports that a lawsuit has been brought in an Illinois federal court on behalf of an employee trust fund alleging an illegal scheme to deprive the market of generic Opana ER, an extended-release painkiller.  The Pennsylnavia Employees Benefit Trust Fund has accused Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., and its subsidiary Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., of orchestrating and implementing a strategy through which Endo essentially paid Impax Laboratories to delay for more than two years its introduction of generic Opana into... Read More
03/20/2014

Pay-for-Delay Lawsuit Involving Nexium Reopened by Federal Court

Pay for Delay Nexium Lawsuit

In the Nexium pay-for-delay multidistrict litigation accusing drug companies of violating antitrust laws by agreeing to delay entry of a generic version of AstraZenca’s heartburn drug Nexium, federal Judge William Young may be reconsidering some of his orders granting the summary judgments to drugmakers. The case stems from the 2008 pay-for-delay deal struck between AstraZeneca, who manufactures the brand name heartburn drug Nexium, and generic-drug makers Ranbaxy, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (the “Generic Manufacturers).  Under the... Read More
02/26/2014

Pay-for-Delay Tactics of Drug Manufacturers Considered by Supreme Court

Pay for Delay Drug Costs

The debate over "reverse payment" patent litigation settlements continues following the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis that such agreements should be individually evaluated to determine whether they violate the anti-trust laws. Reverse payment settlements (aptly referred to as pay-for-delay settlements) arise when a brand drug manufacturer sues a generic drug maker for patent infringement and settles the litigation by paying the generic drug manufacture not to bring the lower-cost generic drug to market for a specified period of time,... Read More
02/03/2014

Pay-For-Delay Pharmaceutical Litigation

Pay For Delay Drug Litigation

In recent years, increasing scrutiny has been given to the practice of pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to suppress the introduction of less expensive generic drugs into the market by artificial and potentially illegal means.  In some instances, the manufacturers of brand-name drugs will enter into anti-competitive  agreements with generic drug manufacturers pursuant to which the generic drugs will be withheld from the market for a predetermined amount of time.  Employing another tactic, the brand-name manufacturer may engage in sham patent litigation... Read More