Antitrust

On May 22, 2015, in a much-watched case, the Second Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Actavis PLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Forest Laboratories, LLC (collectively “Actavis” or “Forest”), finding that Actavis’s “hard switch” strategy to launch an extended-release version of its blockbuster Alzheimer’s therapy and delist the immediate-release version would likely violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) filed an administrative complaint last week challenging the proposed $1.9 billion merger of Steris Corporation (“Steris”) and Synergy Health plc (“Synergy”), charging that the transaction would significantly reduce future competition in regional markets for radiation sterilization services.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) accepted on Tuesday from Reynolds American Inc. (“Reynolds”) and Lorillard Inc. (“Lorillard”), subject to final approval, a Consent Order settling the agency’s significant competitive concerns with Reynolds’s proposed $27.4 billion acquisition of Lorillard by requiring the divestiture of four cigarette brands to Imperial Tobacco Group PLC. (“Imperial”).

On April 21, 2015, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state law antitrust claims brought against interstate pipeline companies by a group of manufacturers and other retail buyers of natural gas are not pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act (“NGA” or the “Act”).

The situations where exclusive dealing policies, explicit or tied to an aggressive discounting program, cross the line under the rule-of-reason remain far from clear.

In a 3-2 decision, as part of its aggressive antitrust enforcement in health care industries, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) announced that Cardinal Health, Inc. (Cardinal) agreed to pay $26.8 million to resolve the FTC’s allegations that Cardinal illegally monopolized the sale of low-energy radiopharmaceutical drugs in 25 geographic markets and inflated prices charged to hospitals and clinics for the drugs.

On April 14 in Washington, DC, Global Competition Review hosted its Second Annual IP & Antitrust USA conference.

Today, as we previewed here, the US Supreme Court analyzed the question of whether patent holders should be allowed to contract for royalty payments that continue to accrue after the expiration of the subject patent.

The waves of change affecting health care providers include reimbursement and funding developments, the impact of the Affordable Care Act, technological and medical advances, provider network design transformations imposed by payors — and antitrust.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) co-hosted the second installment of their public workshop series, “Examining Health Care Competition.”

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) on Monday completed its review of Novartis AG’s (“Novartis”) proposed $16 billion acquisition of GlaxoSmithKline’s (“GSK”) oncology drug portfolio with an announced consent decree that requires limited divestitures of BRAF- and MEK-inhibitor drugs used to treat melanoma, ovarian, colorectal, non-small cell lung, and other cancers.

On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state agency, was not exempt from federal antitrust laws when it sent 47 official cease-and-desist letters to non-dentist teeth whitening service providers.

The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Federal Trade Commission a critical win on January 30, 2015 by affirming the Commission’s January 2013 decision holding POM Wonderful LLC in violation of the FTC Act for its deceptive advertisements alleging pomegranate juice and supplements could treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.

In a much anticipated appellate health care antitrust decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s finding that a consummated hospital-physician group merger violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, despite the provider-defendants’ assertion of an efficiencies defense based on integrated care and risk-based reimbursement.

The Department of Justice (the “Department” or “DOJ”) continued its multi-pronged defense of standards-setting organizations (SSOs) who adopt patent policies to prevent hold-up during licensing negotiations.

Last March, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) began a public workshop series entitled, “Examining Health Care Competition.”

On December 22, 2014, a federal district court in New Jersey found that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) alleged facts sufficient to plead an antitrust claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act against defendant, Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”), for denying a generic rival access to samples of its branded drugs (Thalomid® and Revlimid®) that are distributed pursuant to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”) program.

On November 19, 2014, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in one of the most significant antitrust health care cases in years.

On October 21, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Premier Health Partners (“Premier”) and its affiliate hospitals, Atrium Health Systems, Catholic Health Initiatives, MedAmerica Health Systems, Samaritan Health Partners, and Upper Valley Medical Center (collectively, “Defendants”), operating under a joint operating agreement (“JOA”), constituted a single entity incapable of conspiring in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, a U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit decision upholding an FTC finding that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (the “Board”) did not qualify for antitrust immunity after excluding non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services.