Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement UpdatesAntitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector
By Philip Brooks
The following September 24th, 2009 article by Aidan Synnott and William Michael of Paul, Weiss is published at GCP (Global Competition Policy):
During his campaign for the Presidency, then-Senator Barack Obama promised that he would direct his administration to ?reinvigorate antitrust enforcement,? placing special emphasis on competition in health care and pharmaceuticals. Among other things, he promised to ?ensure that the law effectively prevents anticompetitive agreements that artificially retard the entry of generic pharmaceuticals onto the market . . . .? That promise has been echoed by President Obama?s choice to head the Federal Trade Commission (?FTC?), Jon Leibowitz, long an outspoken critic of so-called ?reverse settlement? or ?pay-for-delay? agreements between manufacturers of branded and generic pharmaceuticals. More recently, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (?DOJ?), under new Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, has taken a significantly more aggressive stance toward such agreements than the DOJ has taken before.
As yet, however, the policy position advanced by the FTC, and now adopted by the DOJ, has not gained acceptance in any federal court of appeals. And recent Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions have had the effect of limiting, rather than expanding, the range of antitrust claims that may be brought against holders of pharmaceutical patents for their conduct in the marketplace?especially when such conduct is unilateral. The practical effect of the agencies? stated commitment to heightened enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector, therefore, may be limited by their ability to articulate theories of anticompetitive harm that the federal courts deem viable.
Full post as published by Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates on September 24, 2009 (boomark / email).
Nanotechnology Law
Intellectual property laws
Compellent, Storage Engine, et. al.
$10.5 million settlement reached in intellectual property dispute.
General Electric Co. and SABIC Innovative Plastics
$3 million settlement reached in intellectual property dispute.
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ACUR Securities Fraud
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ACUR
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Laboratories
CPD
NPS Pharmaceuticals
Settles 2006 Class Action

Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Recent Developments in the Pharmaceuticals Sector
The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface
The ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law Launches IP Annual Review
Antitrust Law Developments, Sixth Edition
Patent & Antitrust At Duke Law School
Kobayashi and Wright on Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property & Standard Setting







