Legal Opinion

In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 5, 2014No. MDL No. 2460; Master File No. 13-MD-2460PublishedCited by 62 opinions

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

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
  5. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996

93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by62 opinions

  1. Syed Hassan v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
  2. In Re Lipitor Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
  3. In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
  4. King Drug Co of Florence Inc v. Smithkline Beecham CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
  5. In re Aggrenox Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015

57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API