FTC v. Actavis: Post Argument Discussion

 
Mar 25, 2013 | Room 602
Event: 4:00 | Reception: 5:30
American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington DC, 20016 (map)

 

UPDATE: Supreme Court Ruling, June 2013

In PIJIP’s ongoing Supreme Court series, counsel for parties and amici will discuss intellectual property cases on the afternoon of oral argument, addressing the reaction of the Court at oral argument.  In this case the Supreme Court examines whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit has held).  Reverse payment agreements are a type of settlement agreement where brand-name drug manufacturers pay potential generic competitors to agree not to sell competing generic drugs for a period of years.

  • Michael Carroll  Washington College of Law, Moderator
  • Julia York – Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, counsel for Respondent, Actavis, Inc.
  • Rohit Singla– Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel for Respondent, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  • Ryan Christian – White & Case LLP, counsel for Respondent, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
  • Krista Cox – Knowledge Ecology International, counsel for amicus Knowledge Ecology International, supporting Petitioner
  • Scott Hemphill – Columbia Law School

Oral Argument

Briefs

Amicus Briefs

  One Response to “FTC v. Actavis: Post Argument Discussion”

  1. If I were there I would want to know how psychiatrists are not drug dealers for people prone to addiction.