Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Reverse payment patent settlements, also known as "pay-for-delay" agreements, [1] are a type of agreement that has been used to settle pharmaceutical patent infringement litigation (or threatened litigation), in which the company that has brought the suit agrees to pay the company it sued. That is, the patent holder pays the alleged infringer ...
German pharmaceutical and chemical company Merck KGaA will pay $280 million to settle a claim brought against a former subsidiary, Dey Pharma, regarding Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, the U ...
By 2008 Glenmark was the fifth-biggest pharmaceutical company in India. [5] By 2011 the founder of the company was one of the richest men in India, [6] and Glenmark had worldwide sales of $778 million, a 37% increase over the last year's sales; the growth was driven by Glenmark's entry into the US and European generics markets. [7]
The following is a list of the 20 largest settlements reached between the United States Department of Justice and pharmaceutical companies from 2001 to 2013, ordered by the size of the total settlement. The settlement amount includes both the civil (False Claims Act) settlement and criminal fine.
On Monday, Ligand Pharmaceuticals (NAS: LGND) confirmed that Merck (NYS: MRK) will pay it a $2 million milestone payment, as the latter begins phase 2b/3 clinical trials of a new cancer drug.
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 193 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case with ramifications for patent law . [ 1 ] The dispute dates to approximately 1996 and centers on a federal law known as the " FDA safe harbor " (§ 271(e)(1)).
The settlement payment includes two classes: Individual and Insured Group and Self-Funded Account. Individuals and Insured Groups who were customers between Feb. 7, 2008 and Oct. 16, 2020 may have ...
Some of these settlement agreements have been struck down by courts when they took the form of reverse payment patent settlement agreements, in which the generic company basically accepts a payment to drop the litigation, delaying the introduction of the generic product and frustrating the purpose of the Hatch–Waxman Act. [53] [54]