In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DuBOIS, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This multidistrict litigation concerns what has come to be known as a “pay-for-delay,” or “reverse payment,” settlement— *740a practice in which a brand-name drug manufacturer brings a patent-infringement action against a generic-drug manufacturer and then compensates the generic-drug manufacturer for its agreement to refrain from entering the market with a competing generic version of the brand-name drug until a specified date. The term “reverse payment” derives from the fact that the payment flows in the direction opposite to what one would normally expect in…
2Cases cited98 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Syed Hassan v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- In Re Lipitor Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
- In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
- King Drug Co of Florence Inc v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- In re Aggrenox Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.