Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 MAY 2014

FTC v. Actavis On Remand: A New Chapter

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law

District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine.  In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT) (N.D. GA April 21, 2014).

In April 1999, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Solvay") filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking approval to commercially market a testosterone replacement gel ("AndroGel").  The gel had been developed from a pharmaceutical formula by Besins Healthcare, S.A. ("Besins").  Solvay and Besins thereafter filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO").  A patent was subsequently issued.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from