Monday, February 10, 2014

Review by Third Circuit of Lamictal case likely

Does a promise not to market an "authorized generic" amount to a reverse payment?

Look at post District court holds that under FTC v. Actavis, “pay for delay” means money relevant to a possible appeal of In re: Lamictal, No. 12-cv-995, 2012 WL 6725580 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2012)


Post a Comment

<< Home