FTC v. Endo: Exclusive Licenses, ‘Supracompetitive Prices’ Are Protected By Patent Laws
Decision Shows Impact Of Actavis Beyond Cases Involving Reverse-Payment Settlements
In an unsealed redacted opinion dismissing FTC’s complaint, district judge says Endo’s agreement with Impax, which left it the sole marketer of oxymorphone ER, falls within the bounds of anticompetitive activity protected by patent laws.
You may also be interested in...
Endo and Impax have received a favorable jury verdict after a 2010 patent-litigation settlement between the pair over Endo’s Opana ER was alleged to have been “an anticompetitive scheme that restrained competition,”
The FTC has won the backing of an appeals court over its 2019 decision that found a reverse-payment settlement deal between Impax and Endo over Opana ER to be anti-competitive and illegal.
The generic firm essentially paid the brand to keep its product off the market, FTC alleges in case about Opana ER litigation. Endo considered bringing back its original formulation of oxymorphone but instead reached agreement with Impax to share profits of its generic, antitrust suit claims.