Consumer Protection Investigations: What You Should Do
Paddle's Payment Predicament: Unpacking FTC's Compliance Crackdown — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Compliance Tip of the Day: M&A Domestic Issues
The Current State of the Holder Rule: Friend or Foe? — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Non-Compete Compliance in 2025: State Trends and Employer Strategies
FTC and Florida Focus on Non-Competes, SCOTUS to Rule on Pension Withdrawal Liability - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - Tips for Maintaining FTC Compliance When Using AI
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — The Consumer Finance Podcast
From Banks to FinTech: The Evolution of Small Business Lending — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Driving Digital Security: The FTC's Safeguards Rule Explained — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
First 100 Days of the New HSR Rules with Antitrust Partner Kara Kuritz
Podcast - FTC to Focus on Deceptive AI Claims: Compliance Management Strategies
Cruising Through Change: The Auto-Finance Industry’s New Era Under Trump Unveiled — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Cruising Through Change: The Auto-Finance Industry’s New Era Under Trump Unveiled — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Compliance Needs are Alive and Well: FTC's Recent Enforcement Activity
Podcast - New Guidance on Complying with FTC Rule on Deceptive and Unfair Fees
Podcast - Navigating the New Landscape of Private Equity in Healthcare
(Podcast) The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
The Briefing: Influencer Fail – ALO Yoga & Influencers Named in $150M Class Action Lawsuit for FTC Violations
From Cell Phones to Tractors: The Right to Repair Movement Drives On — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) have concluded a series of three listening sessions focused on competition in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more
In March 2021, our experienced intellectual property, antitrust, and health care litigation lawyers shared some predictions on antitrust policy and enforcement in the health care sector. In “Health Care Antitrust under...more
On February 3, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a joint statement announcing their plans to collaborate in promoting competitive biological product markets and...more
A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more
As Congress focuses on how to drive down drug prices, there is bipartisan support for prohibiting reverse payment agreements, also known as “pay-for-delay” arrangements. These arrangements involve a brand-name pharmaceutical...more
This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more
Last week Markus Meier, the Acting Director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission, gave testimony to the House Judiciary Committee concerning “Antitrust Concerns and the FDA Approval Process.” ...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more
In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...more
In two recent statements, the FTC reaffirmed its intention aggressively to pursue reverse-payment patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. ...more
In a recent interview, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Competition chairwoman Deborah Feinstein announced that targeting pay-for-delay arrangements by pharmaceutical companies would continue as a top priority for the...more
On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may bring antitrust suits against so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, under which pioneer and generic...more
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust challenge to a reverse payment settlement agreement between drug manufacturers, otherwise known as a “pay-for-delay”...more
For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...more
On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-3 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission and issued its long-awaited decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. 570 U.S. __ (2013), Slip Op....more
By rejecting the “scope of the patent” test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” the Supreme Court of the United States subjects such settlements to greater antitrust...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust...more
This week, the Supreme Court announced that “reverse payment” settlements of patent litigation between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies are, when challenged in a subsequent antitrust case, to be judged under the...more
On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis. The 5-3 decision, however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was...more
In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that...more
SUMMARY OF DECISION - In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ____ (Slip Op. June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the underlying antitrust merits of the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running...more
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on June 17, 2013 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Actavis. Writing for the majority that included Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, Justice Breyer’s opinion...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4545 (U.S. June 17, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit decision in FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298 (2012),...more
The Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws may forbid patent settlements that delay the market entry of generic drugs in return for large payments from manufacturers of competing branded drugs....more