IP at the Supreme Court Series: FTC v. Actavis
March 25, 2013
4:00pm | Room 602
Reception to Follow
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 reverse payment agreements, 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.
- 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
Moderated by Michael Carroll, Washington College of Law
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).
All briefs available on SCOTUSblog: FTC v. Actavis