Warner Chilcott will have to face claims it paid drugmakers to delay producing a generic version of its contraceptive Loestrin in multidistrict litigation after the First Circuit on Monday found that noncash settlements can be subject to antitrust scrutiny.
The Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., reiterated the well-established doctrine that “overly restrictive patent licensing agreements” are subject to antitrust scrutiny but it left to the lower courts to structure the antitrust rule-of-reason analysis in cases involving reverse payment patent settlements. In order to help courts provide that structure, Steve Shadowen and co-author David Sorensen offer Model Jury Instructions and a Model Verdict Slip for a typical reverse payment case. The article is published in the 2015 Rutgers University Law Review, Volume 67:637.
Steve Shadowen serves as panelist alongside leading antitrust trial lawyers at the California Bar Association's Golden State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Institute & Antitrust Lawyer of the Year Reception and Dinner. The panelists discussed their recent trial experience in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust Litigation, the first pay for delay case to go to trial since the landmark decision of FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (June 22, 2015) Today, three powerhouse law firms, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP, Hilliard & Shadowen, LLP and Gupta Wessler PLLC asked the United States Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision holding that a U.S. Border Patrol agent who shot and killed a Mexican teenager standing in Mexico from across the U.S. border had qualified immunity and could not be sued by the teen’s family.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision returning the Lamictal reverse-payment case to trial court is an important landmark in their attempt to challenge drug brand-makers’ deals to delay market entry of generic competitors.
Steve Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen, who briefed the case as a friend of the court for the American Antitrust Institute and others, told PaRR that this is “a significant decision that rejects nearly every argument that defendants have made” since the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v Actavis in June 2013.