S. Gullasch, here.
Showing posts with label pay for delay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pay for delay. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Monday, July 06, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Thursday, May 07, 2015
CA Supreme Court on pay for delay
Cipro I & II, here.
"We summarize the structure of the rule of reason applicable to reverse payment patent settlements. To make out a prima facie case that a challenged agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade, a plaintiff must show the agreement contains both a limit on the generic challenger‘s entry into the market and compensation from the patentee to the challenger. The defendants bear the burden of coming forward with evidence of litigation costs or valuable collateral products or services that might explain the compensation; if the defendants do so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the compensation exceeds the reasonable value of these. If a prima facie case has been made out, the defendants may come forward with additional justifications to demonstrate the settlement agreement nevertheless is procompetitive. A plaintiff who can dispel these justifications has carried the burden of demonstrating the settlement agreement is an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Cartwright Act."
"The Hatch-Waxman Act illustrates the law of unintended consequences."
"We summarize the structure of the rule of reason applicable to reverse payment patent settlements. To make out a prima facie case that a challenged agreement is an unlawful restraint of trade, a plaintiff must show the agreement contains both a limit on the generic challenger‘s entry into the market and compensation from the patentee to the challenger. The defendants bear the burden of coming forward with evidence of litigation costs or valuable collateral products or services that might explain the compensation; if the defendants do so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating the compensation exceeds the reasonable value of these. If a prima facie case has been made out, the defendants may come forward with additional justifications to demonstrate the settlement agreement nevertheless is procompetitive. A plaintiff who can dispel these justifications has carried the burden of demonstrating the settlement agreement is an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Cartwright Act."
"The Hatch-Waxman Act illustrates the law of unintended consequences."
Friday, April 24, 2015
Intellectual Property and Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry
AGCM, Conference presentations available here.
Monday, December 08, 2014
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Monday, October 06, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Friday, June 06, 2014
Monday, September 16, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Ofcom.org.uk, here .
-
EnGadget, here . Qualcomm's Answer and Counterclaims here .
-
T. McSweeny, here.
-
G. Soros, here.
-
Los Angeles Times, here .
-
Technology Review, here .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
Deutscher Bundestag, hier . S. auch Entschließungsantrag der Grünen, hier .
-
OECD Digital Economy Papers, here .