Description
Directions:
The U.S. Supreme Court decided FTC v. Actavis, Inc. on June 17, 2013.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-416...
Using the case, describe the following:
1. The facts of the case (summarized)
2. The lower court’s rulings
3. The Supreme Court’s decision
4. Pay-for-delay and how it works
5. A “reverse payment settlement” and how it works
Address how the pay-for-delay and reverse-payment methods impact patent and antitrust laws. Using one of the ethical tests you have learned (Blanchard and Peale, Laura Nash, etc.), explain whether you believe pay-for-delay is an ethical approach or not.
Page length—3 to 5 pages, normal margins, double-spaced.
Use 1 to 2 research references (credible sources—no Wikipedia or a law firm blog); add bibliography.
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW DISCUSSION
Business Law Discussion
Institutional Affiliation
Date
1
BUSINESS LAW DISCUSSION
2
Summary of FTC V. Actavis, Inc. Case Facts
Solvay pharmaceuticals in the year 2000 effectively patented a topical medication gel
known as AndroGel. Soon after the approval of the medication by the FDA, Paddock
Laboratories and Watson Pharmaceuticals who ventured into generic drug manufacturing started
producing generic versions of Solvay Pharmaceuticals’ gel. Due to that act, patent infringement
suit against Paddock and Watson was filed by Solvay, but the manufacturers defended
themselves by claiming that Solvay’s patent was null. Solvay feared to lose AndoGel monopoly
as the infringement suit continued hence entering into a reverse payment agreement with
Paddock and Watson to prevent its established monopolistic position. The company agreed to
recompense the two competitors with a hefty amount thus allowing the company to uphold its
monopoly regardless of its patents’ possible invalidity.
However, a complaint was filed against the pharmaceutical manufacturers by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) immediately after the agreement. The FTC alleged that through
AndroGel market competition limitation, the companies wer...
Review
Review
