Comments on: Supreme Court to Solicitor General: What Say You On Reverse Payments?

By: Patent Baristas » Supreme Court Takes a Bye on Reverse Payments — Again

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:40:31 +0000

[...] Barr Labs (S.Ct. No. 06-830). The Supreme Court had asked for the government’s views on the antitrust effects of settlement agreements between holders of drug patents and generic drug makers e…. This case involves the same legal issue that was raised in FTC v. Schering-Plough Corp., No. [...]

By: Patent Baristas » Solicitor General Says Tamoxifen Case Not a “Good Vehicle”

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:06:40 +0000

[...] (S.Ct. No. 06-830). Earlier, the Supreme Court had asked for the government’s views on the antitrust effects of settlement agreements between holders of drug patents and generic drug makers e…. This case involves the same legal issue that was raised in FTC v. Schering-Plough Corp., No. [...]

By: interested_observer

interested_observer — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:37:53 +0000

Reverse payments should not be per se illegal…at least if one makes a detailed analysis esp. in given that US law does not have compulsory licensing or comparative infringement. But who has written the most compelling cases on either side? Maybe for legality Schildkraut? Maybe against legality Cotter? Hemphil’s is just late and pilling on–how did that even get into NYU law review? (just trying to be provocative of those more knowledgeable than me to aid in my research of this topic)…thanks.